EMT Comments by EMTadot.s3.amazonaws.com/685C3CC7072D400FA33F4D43… · · 2011-05-31The...

of 29 Vetting Comments by EMT

5 Essential Ministry Team (5EMT) Charter Listening/Vetting Session Feedback by EMT

California-Pacific Annual Conference

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Leadership EMT 1 B. New Ministries EMT 7 C. Justice & Compassion EMT 14 D. Resource EMT 18 E. Navigation EMT 22 CONTENTS A. Leadership EMT Information and Clarification: 1. Are the purpose and primary outcomes clear?

o Yes! o Purpose & outcomes are clear! o Stated purpose does not cover the functions of Boards and Agencies o Define a Leader = Who are the Leaders? o How do you identify leadership o How accountability measured o Why are we trying to reinvent o Are recruiting competent clergy o Why haven't we done it? How will new structure help? o This must the goal of the structure o Yes. o Disciples ↓

→ Leaders

Identifying Spirit-led disciples with leadership potential and cultivating them into fruitful leaders!

o Outcome #3 – “perfecting is a weird word. What does it mean? o Core Values - 1. What "leaders" are we talking about? Lay? Clergy? Conf. Staff? Local /Church? o (Content Question) Is the restructuring leading to actual change in how we function? o (Content) Will the change affect; impact, resource local churches? o Third Primary outcome is not clear o Is this only BOM, or others also? o Is there a way to model this after the process of sanctification? o ↑ Continual process vs. End result… o Leadership and Congregational Development should work together. o Secondary outcome #1 – which “structure”? BOD, or specific to AC, etc.? Is there room for change? o “Other outcomes” – we don’t need to list everything. (no i.e. section) o Forming new disciples not included in purpose statement. o The 4 core values are redundant. They need to be shorter and more compelling o The general purpose of creating better leaders is clear, but it is unclear what that looks like. o The primary outcomes are clear and easy to understand. o The secondary outcomes seem to place more importance on loyalty to "The System" than the ministry. o Is Conference shrinking? o New model still unclear o How does Campus Ministry fit in? (not in outcomes) o Campus Ministers were NOT at the table!


o Not everyone has computer access. o Accountability o Values – “Multi-Contextual” need elaboration and clarification, as does “Multi-Cultural” o Primary outcomes #3 – How will LEMT interact with BOOM – is there overlap / duplication? o Primary outcomes #1, 3 – Have redundancy & overlap o Primary outcomes #4 – Vague, unhelpful sentence o “Make the connection real “gets at the desired outcome… o Secondary outcomes: Better definition of who are “Leaders” (clergy, lay, understand the sense of call) o Purposes and outcomes for the Leadership Team are in line with one another, and with many of the ongoing and

stated future needs of the Annual Conference. However, I am not certain that the Vision as defined by the Bishop has enough of an internal cohesion among the several members of the Annual Conference to be viable, let alone the awareness of this vision as the Vision of the Annual Conference beyond the week we spend together at Redlands each year. I was thrown off by the statement “age-related leadership training” as proposed in the Core Values, and would appreciate some further clarity. I am concerned that Cal-Pac Camps has been overlooked as a vehicle for Leadership Development, especially among the partner agencies.

2. Does the structure reflect the stated outcomes?

o Specify where Certified Lay Ministry fall in this structure! o We do not see the connection o How is Leadership not doing & understanding the UMC system o Synergy is lacking. It's a cold place o No. How does the diagram reflect the primary outcome? o Who selects/elects at-large members? o It is not clear at all how the proposed structure leads to the identified outcomes. o PRIMAY OUTCOMES - too much verbiage -- make it more concise. o Push towards multicultural a concern o (Content) -- we need people who are effective in their own contexts (racial, ethnic, cultural) and what does "multi-

contextual" mean? o At-large definition (skill & Talent Key) – too many words, can you make this more clear & concise. Is this really

necessary? o No, it seems to reflect current structure, o Where does evangelism fit in? o The inclusion of Youth & Young Adults in the structure is important, but Camping, a part of Leadership

development should have a seat. 2 members should be added. o Much too complicated to say . . . . . o Word heavy. o Accountability o “Children’s Ministries” “Christian Education” not specifically mentioned… o This structure still seems to reflect “healthy Annual Conference” as primary outcome… How does this place local

churches as the focused outcome? o The structure is definitively burdensome, and as such will need to overcome this limitation to meet the stated

outcomes. The burdensome nature of the structure may not be something that cannot be streamlined, due to constraints from the Book of Discipline, and therefore will require a quality administrator to align the various agents and agencies of the behemoth organization.

3. Are the roles and functions of the suggested staff plan clear and aligned with outcome?

o How C "ADULTS"? EG, Seniors? o No You have not defined the process of accountability and understanding Methodism. Dissemination of info

down to the pews & streets/communities o What is difference between Age Level vs. Team Ministries o No. o 2009 Annual Conf. voted to pay partly by Claremont School of Theology and Cal-Pac. Is this happening?

(W/Director of Leadership) o Concern for 2.75 positions for children, young adult, and youth. Is this necessary? o Is there still a position for Director of Camping? o What does Young Adult Leadership Ministries cover? (Need for job description) o Staffing plan seems more aligned to age-level ministries that we are already doing than to the outcomes that were

identified. o (*Content) What we want is heart - language worship in our own language

STRUCTURE


o (*Content) In order to nurture multi-language churches, we need effective leaders in their own language/context with a cross-cultural ability.

o (*Content) Concern -- the required Task Forces Boards & Agencies will still be there, with a mid-level structure added on top of them?

o We noticed Children is ¾ time while others are full-time. What does this say about priorities? o Can staff 1 – 3 be lumped to say 2-3/4 positions covering these areas? Campus Ministry should be included

here. o Unclear Campus Ministries & Camping? Disconnected. Why age-level staffing? Nothing in core values indicate

age-level ministry? o No. Where is camping? o Downsizing with emphasis on local mission areas. o Director of Camping would have 2 bosses. o Could Director of Camping be funded from apportionments? o Deep concerns for reductions of staff/$ for Camps and Campus Ministries. o Need funding for camp facilities. o In 13 years, we've reduced Campus Ministries from 13 → 7. o Accountability o Without specific job descriptions and work-flow diagram the staff effectiveness is difficult to assess… o There is a significant problem with the funding of BOOM Staff. Use of MEF dollars to pay for this staffing seems to

me a misappropriation of MEF according to the purposes of these funds from the Book of Discipline. Camp Staff needs to be addressed, as site staff, within this ministry, as other secondary staff are occasionally referenced, and the matter is pretty clear that if the camps cannot fund these positions, that the Conference maintains a liability for the payment of employees. Please be certain that the overlap of conversation does not include undo influence from the Bishop, and the extensions thereof (such as the Appointive Cabinet, and Assistant to the Bishop) which are in violation of the Book of Discipline and the separation of powers.

Input and Feedback: 1. What areas of the Charter are grounded and functional?

o Statement of purpose o #2 of core value is good o Primary outcomes: -- especially #2 --#1 is needed to present to our people of UM System o Secondary outcome o Functionality ifs confusing. Too much to absorb o You cannot effectively implement what you do not understand o We are acting our size (representative of size) (includes finances-reality of resources situation) (structural design) o Core Values o Outcomes o Collaboration with other EMT’s o The outcomes are clear. o It seems grounded in Christ and making disciples. o It’s good to see the connections between Leadership Development and the other EMT’s. o Sensitivities & connections with other EMTs are essential o Well put together and the idea of having leadership development is great, but there needs to be more description

to what "Leadership" is. o Statement and core values are grounded and function o Staff reductions on Conference level are necessary (population + $ decreasing) o Who does the hiring for new positions? (CLT?) o Seems to address adequately the disciplinary needs for this EMT. o Are the proposed EMTs an added structure to the current system? If not, what are they replacing? o Purpose and Outcomes are muddied, and unclear in several instances, but the Preamble is the most coherent

and accurate.

2. What areas of the Charter could be improved with some minor changes? o Primary outcome:

#4 → wording of "accountability" of whom & how? Secondary outcome: #2 → much needed to be carried out → more partnership

o We cannot understand any of it enough to tweak it.


o How well is camping represented staff-wise? This is important. o How will this design help the local church? And what does this mean for local church structure, district structure,

etc.? o We need position titles. o More emphasis on training. o Statement of purpose: We suggest “Identifying spirit-led disciples with leadership potential and cultivating them

into fruitful leaders.” o Add “United Methodist Campus Minister Association” to the part speaking about clear and vital relationships with

non-AC orgs. o In sensitivities and connections with other EMT’s #1 change “in relationship to” to “in collaboration with.” o Membership: make sure the at-large members are chosen primarily for leadership development passion rather

than simply for their representation. o Member should have proven effectiveness in leadership development. o Purpose statement excludes formation of new Christians & transforming them to new leaders. (Misses

Evangelism) o The words "new", "entrepreneurial" and "Creative" should be added to show that our leaders should not simply be

those in positions to head, but those with the creative capacity to problem-solve and lead through example. o Direct, succinct language for the Primary Outcomes. o Would have been nice to have questions in advance. o Accountability o Perhaps narrow the slope and number of “outcomes” in order to generate better focus. In purpose Statements:

We don’t transform “Christians” into “Leaders” so much as growing Christians into God-Gifted, God-Graced Ministry” (Leave room for Grace)

o Address implication that solution to Conference and denominational ills is to fix and perfect the clergy. o Re structure: Children’s, education ministry are not included specifically. o In reviewing charter on Leadership it appears that Campus Ministry is in jeopardy. A full time campus minister

must be retained in Hawaii and not combined with another church staff position. o The clarification of several terms would go a long way to enhancing this Charter. In particular: “age-related

leadership training”; “multi-cultural settings”; “‘right place’ to serve” (is this re-tooling?; a deeper understanding of Ordained Ministry from Conference Authority, as it relates to Sacrament, and not the local church?; more closely discerned conversations with the cabinet?; development of a resume, and/or re-tasking?) I would like to see consideration given to “Lifetime Caps” for service in these EMT areas. I realize there are existing caps of this kind for Bishops and Cabinet members, and moderated caps (such as the 8 year rule), which can all be bypassed or manipulated, but I feel that for the overall development of Leadership, the ongoing consolidation of trust and/or authority in limited hands could be effectively mitigated with “Lifetime Caps” to such service.

3. What areas of the Charter are rightly intended but could be better described?

o Secondary outcome #3 → bring & clarify how it would work in the local church o TOO MANY LAYERS o Identify and train leadership to implement o You mean to say Seminary is not training clergy adequately? o How well is camping represented staff-wise? This is important. o How will this design help the local church? And what does this mean for local church structure, district structure,

etc.? o We need position titles. o More emphasis on training. o #2 under sensitivities to other EMT’s doesn’t make sense to us as a “sensitivity”. o Need clearer idea of how EMT with work with BOOM & Appointive Cabinet. o Who will be on Extended/Mission cabinet o How do ethnic ministry focuses fit in with leadership EMT? o Needs to intentionally recognize and empower the encourage different culturally-sensitive leadership styles. o Reasonably good work, but not ready to implement yet. Too much, too fast, too soon. o EQUITABLE COMP -- good vision - make it available to new ministries -- but - as long as we have too many

pastors for declining churches -- the funds are needed (discipline) for existing pastors o why affirm New Ministries over resource? What's the argument for this decision? o Equitable Comp belongs under Resource EMT o Current EQ rules are well defined. How will those required skill sets for review and approval be applied and

maintained in the new structure? o Consult to find leaders who have the experience to make the system work.


o Clarification on secondary outcome #1 o Clarification for other outcome #1 o Relationship to other EMT’s: o Needs: leadership development needs clear direction from Navigation & other EMTs for types of leadership

development needs o What does "multi-contextual" mean? o Where does camping live? o How do we enable Youth and Young People. o When "recruiting" leaders, are we looking to recruit from the right places? o Can the recruitment process replace the self-selection for Leaders ???? o A clear, practical implementation plan to have Conference Staff resourcing local church. o The "How" is not clear, the "who" and "Why" are clearer. o How can the Conference support the local church -- especially with issues and concerns o Accountability o Wesleyan-positive accountability o Connection? Make disciples …. → Use resources → 4 Foci (what disciples do) o How do we get from making to doing? Where is emphasis on making, supporting, encouraging

disciples o Without this/them what will we transform? Developers model or disciples model o Early Methodists transformed world/society by transforming disciples o Class meetings was how they did it within societies and leaders in ??? meetings o "live our Wesleyan contribution" o How is this system Wesleyan? o Need to learn Wesleyan Theology, practices, connections, "method" before we simply use term, but don't really

know it/display it o We are called Methodist, but we are mainline & new??? (maybe we should drop name "Methodist?" (or actually

recover it in forms for today!) o Campus Ministry needs an active presence throughout the annual conference including major universities and

campuses. o The relationship to Cal-Pac Camps needs to be more explicitly drawn and developed. Solicitation seems to be

implied in the “Relationship to Other Essential Ministry Teams” in “Sensitivities...3” [Others]. I would suggest re-entry (particularly Cabinet and Conference Staff) renewal, retraining and retasking, as well as exit strategy development for clergy of all varieties.

4. What areas of the Charter are of concern to the point that they jeopardize the stated outcomes?

o No! o Lack of identification of the function of Leaders. o Other Outcome: page 13 o How did we get here without leaders? o What are we suppose to be isn't? o You mean to say our Clergy are not trained to provide leadership. We thought they knew and understood

Methodism/Leadership o Camping will have adequate attention? Does not make clear o Need specifically designated people for the EMT with a college/higher ed ministry focus o How does this specific EMT structure support the primary outcomes or purpose? The structure reflects what

already is instead of organizing to achieve desired outcomes. o The campus ministry plan has to be figured out asap. o If the membership is representational of age or ethnicity, then it would jeopardize the outcome if the staffing is

also based on age-level representation. o The focus on denominational loyalty to the point that the structure overshadows the ministry. o Campus Ministries cannot, effectively, be folded into local churches. o Conference involvement in Camps must be invested in through Resources. o Less bureaucrat system to be more effective. o How are we moving from program model to connectional model? o How do the 5 charters impact each other? o Need clarity on staffing for Young Adult, Youth, Children, Camping leadership positions. Young people in the

discussion group on March 19 indicated that a merger has already occurred resulting in the Young Adult and Youth combined into what is called the “Young People” group but that is not reflected in the staff positions as


presented. Adults are combined but the proposal has 2 staff and 2 task forces. General lack of clarity on staffing for this EMT.

o The vague reference to “Funding pools” under Leadership Task Forces further erodes the dubious trust in the funding of the Annual Conference. This needs to be enumerated and defined clearly. The definition and demarcation of the Camping Ministries Staff needs to be addressed clearly, as misperceptions and misunderstandings have led to much hurt in the Conference Camp Leadership, especially as it relates to how these are funded by the Annual Conference. I am concerned that the ambiguous understanding of the Book of Discipline and the willingness to shade to the point of obfuscation the required committees and working groups within this larger Leadership Team will only cause ongoing frustration, and a further erosion of trust in the Annual Conference.

5. Does the staffing plan support the primary outcomes? What could be changed or improved?

o Adult leadership ministry is lacking unless the Director of Leadership is doing -- and -- if so, it needs to be mentioned.

o Are we adding or subtracting positions? This is unclear. o No. The plan is not focused on outcomes but on existing structures and age-level ministries o Nominations issue - need folks who know what they're doing on the Bds and Agencies o maybe a smaller # of volunteers is part of the goal at the AC level? o Will going to fewer folks on Bds/agencies increase the AC-local church disconnect? o The general clarity of the 5 EMT's is helpful; it opens some doors and some new thinking. o *Staff plan comment -- Problem you're dealing with is folks working on a group level and also having specific

competencies o No, see #4. Staffing should e age-level representation. o More emphasis on multi-cultural, Young Peoples Ministries, more emphasis on the transformation nature of

camping. o Campus Ministries cannot, effectively, be folded into local churches. o Conference involvement in Camps must be invested in through Resources. o Less bureaucrat system to be more effective. o improved? o What are the practical/intentional steps to obtain outcomes. Practical procedures? Intentional steps? goals? o Expressed concern over nominating process in regard to representation issues of ethnicity, age, gender, male,

female, clergy, lay etc. o Staffing of the Leadership Essential Ministry Team looks to address several needed areas. I am concerned about

the allocation of funds from MEF to pay for BOOM staff, the failure to adequately support our Camp Ministries, and the tenuous lines of accountability to our Campus Ministry staff will disrupt the overall achievement of the Leadership Team

6. Have we missed something important? Or is there something we don't need?

o What @ the 4/3 rule of nominating committee? o What @ representations of WMM & WMW in the other teams (all teams) o Bottom line goal: Staffing proposal meet a reduction of cost reduction goal -- if not -- the odds of this passing is

slim o Whose idea is this? o How is this better than what we have? o Are we simply arranging chairs on the deck as we SINK? o Can we address problems not structure? o Communication Accessing o Lack resources/response o How to resources? Churches don't know what is there o You have not explained our problems. Why is BOOM not dealing with leadership? o What is the impact on, and the role of, the local church in the new structure? What “buy-in” is required at the local

church level? o Need more work on ethnic/cultural leadership styles and forms. o Much to be said for 5 groupings (EMT's) but much doesn't fit well under any of the 5. Ex: Equitable Salaries, Joint

Comm.. on Incapacity, Comm. On Investigations, Admins, Review Comm.. o Maybe there doesn't need to be a home for every Bd & Agency in the 5 EMT structure. o Big Questions - restructuring doesn't necessarily answer them. o How will staff in the new plan be held accountable? o Evangelism? - How do locally based initiatives find a home in this plan?


o There is a desire to hear from the other EMT in relationship, but there is nothing about hearing from the local churches about what leaders they need.

o How do we avoid 5 silos later on? o Need an overarching goal from Navigation for unifying the whole plan. o Focus. More needed. o Need more laity at this meeting. o Emphasis of this process was from top → down. o College students need to be served. o Disciples are created in the local church -- not in and thru the A.C. Therefore, it seems the whole plan drains

resources & personnel from local church ministry to do A.C. stuff. We need to keep our leaders, pastors, resources in the local church where the red ink of disciple-making is done.

o What impact will be felt by the group not in attendance during this process? Will they really be "on board" or will they continue to function as separate groups -- much as Pacific Islands Commission, Korean Ministry council, caucuses.

o Quest: whether this will increase sense of trust and community in AC. For example, The Cabinet plan to reduce districts being done outside this process reflects a BIG lack of communication and trust.

o ACCOUNTABILITY o If reformulating district, should not we just maintain everything as status quo until that process is completed then

proceed to EMT proposal. o This particular EMT has too many holes in it to feel complete. As such, it may subvert the entire model of 5EMTs

as benefit to the Annual Conference. I also note that Scouting Ministries is not defined in this area (or any other), and would seem to be the most logical connection within the larger context of the 5EMT proposal.

B. New Ministries EMT Information and Clarification: 1. Are the purpose and primary outcomes clear?

o Define healthy and fruitful ministry. How do we measure success? o Purpose o All felt purpose clear o Reflected what BCD already doing o Outcomes o #3 – two different outcomes? o Unclear in relationship to equitable compensation o #5 – Unclear o Secondary – 69 – 70 unclear o Outcomes should be stated separately – reword as outcome o Yes! o We agree the purpose is clear. Primary outcomes are clear, but we are not sure #3 is realistic. o Purpose clear as stated “We strategically and intentionally cultivate” o Primary Outcome o #2 Increase the number of growing & vital new churches according to statistical data of National census 2010 o Explain all acronyms o Yes, stated purposes & outcomes are clear. o What’s plan for revitalization? o How can local churches understand change in structure o How can local churches understand “radically diverse region? Implementation o Where does revitalization fit in? (we discovered it is there) o #2--increased # of churches? Or increasing % of churches that are growing and vital. o Like - Secondary outcome #3. Should be a primary outcome as it is critical to success of other outcomes. o Is this only about planting new? Revitalization also? Not clear o How are these new outcomes different and fresh from the old outcomes o We are too restricted in terms of what actual ministries might be. o The language appears to be more inward focused as opposed to reaching out in the community outside of the

U.M.C. o Has the outcomes of the national census been considered? o Overall there is a failure to recognize the five racial plans i.e., Hispanic, Native American, haven’t included Asian

American language min. Korean Vietnamese, et al, SBC 21 Century. o Yes


o Purpose – yes, clearly stated o Primary / outcome – not as clear o “Revitalization” is different than “New Ministries” – should be separated o Purposes and outcomes for the New Ministries Team are in line with one another, and with many of the ongoing

and stated future needs of the Annual Conference

2. Does the structure reflect the stated outcomes? o For lay person, the use of initials used in the document are confusing when they are not defined. o cross cultures bridge-builders circle needs to be bigger, and in the center. because in the structure the ethnic

fields it is small, and in our region we have so much diversity. o How does having one member of Equitable compensation on #2 Sub-team change outcome? o Clarify where equitable comp decisions are made o How are funding decisions going to be made? Are districts still going to be involved? o Relationship with Justice/Comp EMT unclear – needs to be clarified w/outcome. o #5 Add members: Asian Am Lang = 1, Native Am = 1, Korean = 1, Strengthening Black church = 1 o Don't confuse ethnic caucuses with national plan o Clarify the makeup of subteam o Don't leave out national plan o Clarify the Hispanic plan o What is the relationships o Clarify staffing as it relates to ethnic representation o Visual of the structure helps in conceptualizing the relationship between the purpose/stated outcomes and

structure. Sub-team on Fund Developers is not clearly delineated as part of the primary outcomes. The rest seem to square with the stated outcomes.

o The structure supports stated outcomes. o Structure does reflect stated outcome o Structure left us wanting more information on how “no community will be left behind” o More strategy, organizing and action o More toward action o Like network organizer & funding developer o Yes o Nominating process for selection of sub team members to hub team not clear. o Looks like BCD structure but no suggestion as to how Hu/sub teams accomplish outcomes. o Is there a place for unique leadership training (clergy) for multi-cultural or cross-cultural ministries? Line 416? (I.e.

Korean pastor appointed to Filipino congregation, Anglo pastor appointed to Latino/Filipino congregation) o Why can't vice-chair and secretary be named from the 3 Sub-Teams? o Too many people o Sub-team leaders will be going to meetings of two teams? o Concerns about not representing our diverse populations (leaving someone out) o Concerns we don't have the structure to support new ministries that reflect diversity in Hispanic communities o Not fully. o It reflects their point of view (CLT) o What's missing" Consider geographical demographics o Interfacing realities o Yes o Election to the New Ministries Team falls in line, however staffing concerns are similar to those of the Justice and

Compassion Team, namely that there seems to be an indicated overlap in job title that was interpreted to mean that the jobs could be combined, without substantial consideration given to the actual hours required to do the jobs of this Team.


o Are the roles and functions of the suggested staff plan clear and aligned with outcomes? o Line 400 Where do we find Superman & Wonderwoman? o Line 253 How do we measure these expected outcome? What equals success? Or what defines failure. o Line 400 How do you define cultural competent? o Connection between New Min & Justice/Comp unclear o concern of shared position – getting equal emphasis


o The equipping and skill-builder portions are clear in the structure but not clear in the staffing. One can assume a connection with Leadership EMT but it’s not spelled out. In addition the strategic portion isn’t clearly spelled out for the Director of the NMEMT.

o We do not feel that skill-building is being addressed in the staffing. o The staffing suggestions reflect old thinking and do not take into consideration third world models. (CST Model,

Inland Empire Cluster Council) o No -- Too much work load for Div of New Ministries (diversity too great) o General concern for a position focusing on Latino Ministries o Questions in relationship to fund developers position in relationship to its relation to resource EMT & leadership

EMT o Question of fund development needs in other EMTS. o Role of support staff? o big picture thinkers require more increase in detail team members o Hard to determine until outcomes are created. o Are we shifting “old” leadership into new positions? o Are we interviewing & hiring new leadership? (Real turnover of staffing) o Is vice-chair necessary? What’s their role? o Could it be: Chair of New Ministries and Chair of Revitalization or Chair of Cross-Cultural Ministries o What happens to “culture-specific” ministries and leadership? Does emphasis on “culture-specific” ministries get

lost if leadership positions are removed? (I.e., Latino Coordinator & Latino Caucus) is this referred to in line 301? Is that good enough? Line 374 gets us there. Exempt staffing: does it have term limits?

o No. Sounds like Director is a bureaucrat and the "Network Organizer" is the one actually making things happen. o What "oversight" "alignment" & "co-ordination" is needed? o I think the "organized" has the ministry & an "Asst. Director" does the bureaucracy. o Get a support person who can help w/"oversight"; coordination & grant writing. o As long as they get the right people! o Maybe more network organizers o People training in multicultural leadership to assist the local ministries (be on the front lines to support) o For grant writers use contract positions o Have more effective staff, not more staff o Based on CLT's outcomes o A strong administrative staffing plan. o We need more teamwork concept and ethic. o We need to recognize the representation of all ministries o How and when will the transition of new staff into the EMT occur? o Yes o Does not support Outcome #2 as stated. o How are they held accountable? To whom? o Not sure how paid staff interacts with EMT to reach goals. o Staffing seems to be severely underserved in hours compared to the expectations of service, knowledge, and

development of resources Input and Feedback: General Feedback

o .5 Support Staff = mandates Bilingual = What languages Trilingual Qualify it o Don’t miss the boat! o Speak to Generational Focus (not just cultural) o Focus on the development for the new ministry EMT & Leadership EMT (Children’s Ministry) in existing churches o Plant churches with new peoples within existing churches. o Dying gracefully while giving birth to a New Life Ministry! o Purpose is clear. o Outcomes are solid

1. What areas of the Charter are grounded and functional? o The whole charter is unfunctional to lay people who do not understand the background o Needs an introduction and be more direct in what you are trying accomplish o Core values o More clarity needed on core value #2


o It clearly shows alignment with the denominational Four Areas of Focus. The sub-teams clearly show the priorities and what work will be done. The number of people that will populate the EMT seems like a good working number. The outcomes look pretty good. The core values are great.

o We like that you are listening to all voices and you are willing to move out of your comfort zones. (Core values) o We agree with building awareness across the AC. o “Core Values” clear and well stated. o Interaction w/ sub-committees & NMEMT seem grounded o structure of sub-teams & statement of purpose o representation of Hub team o relationship to other EMTS o Links between JCEMT & NM EMT o Beyond NMEMT (positives) -Nav EMT-easier communication of vision -Relational capacity between EMTS o Intentional plan for communication o Strong, well-defined purpose statement o Composition of EMT leadership both elected and selected to keep leadership fresh and fruitful o Importance of broad representation to reflect radically diverse region o In general -- lots of unnecessary obfuscating "churchy" language. o Statement of purpose is good o Outcomes are OK o Primary outcome #3 should be a secondary outcome. o What about reducing & eliminating o Not-growing and Not-vital ministries? o Not everything can be "revitalized." o Trained planters & developers should be a primary outcome. o Are we PLANTING or revitalizing. o Like the focus of equipping local ministries o The cross cultural circle should be larger o The cross cultural should go beyond appointments o More emphasis on cross cultural ministries o Most—except More emphasis on: Local and Regional Ministry Development--Difficult for Conf. to deliver ministry o Core values—too VAGUE/ vision by committee—Doesn’t provide direction o New Ministry Hub team = Old B.C.D. o We find the material grounded and clear from conference standpoint, but not so much from local church

standpoint. o Major concern over the possibility that bilingual and multicultural element will not be preserved in New Ministries

area o Purpose and Outcomes are grounded, functionality will depend on the adaptability and competency of the other

areas.

2. What areas of the Charter could be improved with some minor changes? o Why use "EMT" for years this meant "Emerg. Medical Tech." Recommend use "MT" o The sheer length/volume of the document, though probably unavoidable, could work against people being able to

grasp it! CEC is not clearly named as part of the makeup of the EMT hub. They relate to the funding sub-team, and that’s it. That’s too tangential. The cross cultural bridging sub team does not include Native American Ministries. Need to spell out what DPAS means (line 265).

o We like that there is a plan to work with other EMTS, but what is the plan for accountability? o “Other Outcomes” . #2 → move to Primary Outcome. o Clarify Cross-cultural Bridging o Sub-team where caucuses are lifted up and embraced o Creating mechanism to allow new caucuses to form and be heard o Skill-builder sub-team-expand to include not just congregations but caucuses & communities o NMEMT Core values need to reflect inclusivity of our AC o How is cultural understanding broadened o We read into language of purpose & outcome to include cross-cultural or cultural specific ministries but isn’t

intentionally named. Its “assumed” o Line 284 – feels too “bush-y” o How are outcomes & core value evaluated? How do we measure success to ensure all this is happening? o Rearrange some of the outcomes. o Plainer, bolder & bolder language.

Where does this talk about

evaluation measurement of

"growth & vitality"

No Accountability


o The Statement of Purpose should be the only "visionary" language. o Build in evaluation & accountability. o Too many core values o Flat rate for Health Ins?? o Greater focus of cross-cultural skill-building o It is not a minor change it should be a larger change between the small circle and the big circle. More clarity of

the roles of ethnic/language ministries. o Focus on clergy and lay relationships or partnerships for vital ministries. o Revisit your diagram on page 34. o More focus/energy on the development on non UMC funds and UMC funds beyond UMC conference. o Justice & Compassion and New Ministries need to be regionalized not centralized o Push down creativity & mission to local level o Create opportunities to do more local/regional ministries—satellite churches??? o Let Conference do: Trustees/Property/Camping/Board of Pensions…etc. (That must be centralized) o How does this structure help local churches 1) begin w/idea; 2) develop idea; 3) find resources & support; 4)

operate w/great flexibility? -- A story like this would be helpful for us to wrap our minds and imaginations around -- These are the sig.?'s our churches have.

o SMART goals not identified in job descriptions which are passive. Looking for active verbs which lead to outcomes that are measurable

o Please take some time to address the variety of ethnic caucuses you are seeking to represent. I fear two things related to this, as it affects the Core Values - 1) that we will leave communities behind, intentionally, and that we should do so (see areas such as Santa Ynez, Death Valley, Mentone, the Czech, Ethiopian and Laotian communities based on location and ethnicity for a more substantial conversation); 2) To seek to include such communities means deferring more and more decisions to the local church, disintegrating accountability and connection to the larger denomination, which creates a conflict of priorities


o The sheer length/volume of the document, though probably unavoidable, could work against people being able to grasp it! CEC is not clearly named as part of the makeup of the EMT hub. They relate to the funding sub-team, and that’s it. That’s too tangential. The cross cultural bridging sub team does not include Native American Ministries.

o The Manager of Cross-cultural Ministry Development is great, but this needs to include specific training for working with ethnic ministries (congregations of Koreans, Hispanics, etc.)

o How do EMT’s interact more effectively ? o Clarity on purpose for fund developer in each EMT o We have mission, goals, staff, etc., but what is the method to achieve the outcomes listed? o How are we training leaders more specifically? o What is the system of not “leaving any community behind?” is this realistic? o How is cross-cultural “bridges” defined? Line 374 o What perspective is that coming from? (Latino, Anglo, Korean, Filipino congregations? o Does this include language specific? o Include age, socio-economic? o Are we “really” ready to be committed to “core Value” o Core Values --Good idea --Good place for vision-type language --Too much (Don't read past "we commit") o We commit: Too many people, Too much "cross representation" o Feels way too bureaucratic o Seems like lots of people meeting But not doing o "The United Methodist way" ? ? ? o Greater focus of cross-cultural skill-building o Better connection between the circles. o Line 372 page 10: include "current and emerging racial ethnic/language groups" o Line 371 add: members from general conf. sponsored racial ethnic plans 1.) SBC21; 2.) KNP; 3) AALM; 4)NACP;

5) White o How are these people going to be elected or appointed? o The process needs to be transparent o Core Values o Many of our churches need and hunger to create new ministry; however, the task forces listed may not (in our

case for the most part do not) correspond to the make-up and new components of our local communities.


**15 people can't be "big picture".

They need to be strategic thinkers

o How about New Ministry to older population -- reaching out effectively to them? The arts? Etc. Is there resource for such as these?

o Nomenclature for staff positions that are shared with Justice and Compassion EMT have different job titles though they share the position, ie. Network Organizer and Cross Cultural Ministries Developer. Same with Fund developer and Fund Development. (Also identified that there is a .5 support staff in JCEMT….but the other.5 support staff is not identified on the staff position chart.)

o Transitional Ministries, as intentional appointments will need to be addressed. Additionally, the Board of Ordained Ministry will need to be in line with making recommendation of candidates who do not fit the traditional models of “local church minister”, as well as a willingness to support partnerships with entrepreneurs with local church pastors to frame and form a more effective and creative model of ministry.

4. What areas of the Charter are of concern to the point that they jeopardize the stated outcomes? o Need to be more aggressive and clear about the new census data that indicates rising ethnic populations. o The proposed staffing levels appears to be headed for overloading. o We seem to be more concerned with staffing than obtaining results. o We don't state why we are losing Meth members. Does the change of the structure address this issue? If so

how? o This Charter does not address issues or requirements/resolutions passed recent annual conferences. i.e.

"Hispanic Comprehensive Plan" which was due this year (2011) at Annual Conf. o The concern is will there (be) finances available to support suggested staff. o Where will the training come from? o Staffing – o Missing 2010 National Census data, e #5 Hispanic Ministries o Intention to leave ‘no community behind’ must be woven into the tapestry of all sub-teams & NMEMT to insure

that its success o Through the process benchmarks & accountability! o Please note these thoughts apply to NMEMT & general EMTS o How are we measuring how much input will be captured from

vetting sessions? o Given diversity in expectations, how will extremes be measured? o Who develops measurements? o Clarify who is staffed into new position. If it’s just “shifting” existing leadership to new positions & its “business as

usual”, then it’s a deal breaker. o Lack of ability to “fire” existing staff. o "Reach our neighbors" for ?? o What does "Culturally Competent" mean? If we don't define and emphasize that -- it jeopardizes the enterprise. o What does "open" mean? o What is "big picture"? Who's going to make it actually happen" o Is there enough staff & diverse staff to facilitate desired outcomes? o Emphasize intentionally more cultural diversity o There is a concern that an incoming bishop will not have input/ownership of this new model and will be “raising

someone else’s child.” o How does this structure help local churches 1) begin w/idea; 2) develop idea; 3) find resources & support; 4)

operate w/great flexibility? -- A story like this would be helpful for us to wrap our minds and imaginations around -- These are the sig.?'s our churches have.

o Many of our churches need and hunger to create new ministry; however, the task forces listed may not (in our case for the most part do not) correspond to the make-up and new components of our local communities.

o How about New Ministry to older population -- reaching out effectively to them? The arts? Etc. Is there resource for such as these?

o Concern about ethnic members, etc. losing voice if there is not the principle of representation based on age, ethnicity, clergy, lay, male, female, etc.

o According to the Purpose and Outcomes, the biggest boldest piece of concern was “GROWING & VITAL” churches. Without definition, and more explicitly a manner in which those will be evaluated, and held accountable, along with site-specific training, and understanding of resources this is liable to doom the entire project, or at least keep it spinning its wheels without substantive impact. I would also like to see more attention to the ministry development implemented in camps, as a direct connection to New Ministries, and as a functional part of revitalizing leaders, with the camps and retreat centers we own and maintain. With all the attention paid to going forward, growth and vitality, I would really like to see some help with Sabbath, and renewal as well, even to the extent that the grant writer might help with such things as the Lily Grant and Kellogg Foundation grants which


allow for pastoral renewal funds. Incorporating this kind of renewal leave development can help sustain a hard-driving model such as has been outlined.

5. Does the staffing plan support the primary outcomes? What could be changed or improved? o Good Luck with any Hispanic Ministry o Regardless of our difference of opinions I for one appreciate the many hours everybody - as a team put into this

great job. o We believe there needs to be an overall reduction in staff for financial reasons. However, if this staffing plan is

done in such a way that the Fund Developer is put in place first, that could then fund the rest of staff. Another transitional suggestion is to begin with Directors in place and only budget a lump sum that could enable the Director to hire staff (consultants/contracts) as needed. Have it be outcome-based.

o In sub-teams, you have the skill-builders sub-team. But in the staffing plan, we don’t see skill-building being addressed.

o No! –1. Hispanic Min. -- staffing does not respond to decision of AC 2010 when Hispanic Min as one of the priorities.

o In need of adequate support staff to meet outcomes o Engagement of passionate people to care for details o No -- Director & Network Organizer -- doesn’t sound effect -- See previous note.

More administrative "on-the-ground" staff. Less bureaucrats. Not 2 "Directors" -- 1 "Support", Rather1 "Director" -- 2 "Support"

o Is there enough staff & diverse staff to facilitate desired outcomes? o More clarity on the scope of funding! o Given the demographic shifts and stated outcomes the staffing plan is unrealistic. o Resource staffing okay. o Regionalize staffing for: New Ministries, Justice and Compassion o Could use a Conference Brainstormer o Ministries seem to be primarily related to old congregational structure and not representing “new things”. o As noted, several times above, the staffing allocations for this committee could undercut the entire module, due to

lack of connection and time to work with the local church, most especially from “Conference Staff” regardless of how much work any member(s) of the committee is able to invest in such work.


o Charter for funding element needs clarification o Reword where # districts is specific o If the staffing plan of this EMT structure involves an increase in the number of staff and/or cost rather than a

decrease, this could sink the whole plan. o We have missed models that are already at work in our conference.

Cluster-based cooperative ministries Third World UMC models University project repercussions for ministry (what is this conference’s seminary teaching our churches &

AC?) o Or is there something we don't need? No. o Missed agreement – see 5 o Specific Time lines for implementing EMT plan o Questions of Equitable Compensation landing in Resource & New Ministries o Equitable Comp-to enabling the evangelization of the poor & marginalized o Lacking of word Evangelism throughout the charter. o Explanation of cabinet/bishop’s mission areas & connection w/ EMTS o In core values, where is statement about spiritual formation, e.g. prayer, bible study, etc.? o Missed: Accountability: Evaluation, Subtracting? Not just adding?, H DPAS does the "closing" -- need to indicate

that. o How are we going to reach the younger people coming into the ministry o We have to make a new plan to make new ministries o Is this plan going to inspire the laity enough? o Do we need additional objectives to train & empower the laity? o Develop a strong new youth ministry o Simplify process to ordained ministry for ethnic minorities, non-English speaking new ministries o Be more sensitive to the need of ethnic minorities


o There is something that is missing: Stronger connection with general agencies especially with GBHEM/and BOOM for the development of more culturally competent leaders. To balance passion, representation ability and connection of leadership, in keeping with Resolution 40. It is a matter of justice that the same should apply to all the property assets of all ethnic constituents.

o Yes! Missed how this impacts the local church. o Nothing in the plan that leverages strengths of the strongest local churches, to energize the weaker churches in

their region. o Local church worship is our weakest point—where is worship development in this plan? o Will district be required to reorganize around conference structure? o The connection between Navigation, especially as it relates to the Board of Ordained Ministry, and the Appointive

Cabinet needs to be established more directly to enable to kinds of ministry proposed here to take effect, in a real and quality manner.

C. Justice & Compassion EMT Information and Clarification: 1. Are the purpose and primary outcomes clear?

o Purpose: is clear o Outcome: concern not enough local community focus o Define “empower” o Who is responsible for achieving the primary outcomes, and how are they held accountable? o Should the term by “church” or “faith community” o Yes. The purpose is clear. o In the outcomes, we suggest that you should include some relationships with the General Church o Very clear. o No mention of Peace (offered: Purpose Statement; calling to create a Peaceful, Just & Loving World) Otherwise

ok o Prime Outcomes: Elimination of root causes of poverty, such as war, violence, economic and equality. o Yes o How can local churches understand change in structure? o Who holds whom accountable? o Some justice ministries were inadequately represented at the table: COSROW (no on Navigation), HIV/AIDS Task

Force o Very general o Funding sources/prioritizing is unclear o Who arbitrates conflicts among ministry requests? (grants) o Who is in each mission engagement strategy group? o As a newbie, this was much information to take in. o Not enough examples of outcomes. o If we had known we would specialize at tables, we could have spent more time on our EMT of choice. o Yes o Yes o Yes o Purpose is clear. o Primary Outcomes o Primary outcomes are clear. o It is open to interpretation. o The connection to local churches is not clear. o Clarify #2, “of & with the poor” o Clarify #5 “funding for each EMT” Local? Nontraditional? o The Purposes do seem to be adequate, with the primary outcomes also serviceable. I would like to see some

clarification of “task forces”, as I love the idea of short term working groups for projects without the discernable need to establish standing committees.

2. Does the structure reflect the stated outcomes?

o Connection & support with navigation needs clarification o And how does this ministry take, or propel justice ministries to local church o Structure still doesn't hold local churches accountable o Still, staffing structure, too Ivory Tower, -- without enough local church connection.


o There are most interconnections than shown o How can these strategies be implemented o Looks good on paper. o We don’t know yet. We need experience and try and see how it works. o The idea of engagement is good, but On-going Mission and Resourcing Mission is not clear. o Please add some examples o We are not sure how it will be. o Let’s give it a try o Yes, we feel that the structure reflects the stated outcomes o #5 less geographic/emphasis more on issues diversity. o Yes o How are new task forces identified, approved, and brought into structure o Justice and compassion issues change in priority o When do ministry groups have to produce strategies? o How does this new structure affect district ministries o How does hold staff and members accountable? o Yes -- as proposed o size of initial committee (conducive to work?) o Yes o Add to 1b: Economic & Environmental justice task force. o Where do the local churches fit in with the structure? o 8 at large need to have skill and background to assure that no justice issue is under represented. o #5 change geographic to district representative. o While the titles of the staff for this area seem to correlate to the needs, but seems to lack a clear picture of why

some of the staff with direct relationships with the local churches would be cut to half-time.

3. Are the roles and functions of the suggested staff plan clear and aligned with outcome? o Clear but not certain correctly aligned o Suggestion -- Insure direct communication with JCEMT & New Ministries EMT o Justice Ministry & New Ministries need to be more strongly related for communication o Network Coord & fund developer – need o More local church conversation o More attention -- directly to & with local church o Yes o Need more definition of time allocation of shared person. o Role of support staff? o big picture thinkers require more increase in detail o team members o A .5 staff support seems inadequate? (NO) o How is new staff recruited? o What is the job description for the DS’s? o How does Episcopal assignment in 2012 affect plan? o How are local churches informed? o How will this staff help local churches? o Support staff - 1/2 time? 1/2 because shared? o Yes -- for J&C EMT to best of ability to forecast future need. o You will never know until it is implemented. o Staffing is unrealistic in terms of work and responsibility. o Expectations are high. o Staffing seems to be severely underserved in hours compared to the expectations of service, knowledge, and

development of resources. Input and Feedback: General Comments:

o We resist answering these six questions. o Generally speaking, we think that the charter looks good, and we would suggest that the TEAMS experiment with

it next year and see how it works, then we will adjust it. o It is important to emphasize the purpose and functions of the TEAMS


o It is harder to answer the staffing questions. What is desirable may not be affordable. We have to do the best that we can.

o All in all, it is a thorough work, and let’s try to see how it works.

1. What areas of the Charter are grounded and functional? o purpose o Staffing - grounded -- not functional o Suggest full time co-ord & market developer o Make intentional connection w/new ministry team o Yes they are grounded and functional o Staffing & networking o Prime outcome #3: The prophetic voice for A.C. o Strong, well-defined purpose statement o Composition of EMT leadership both elected and selected to keep leadership fresh & fruitful o Representation broad to reflect radically diverse region o Info to vague. More emphasis on local needs. o How are these needs balanced? o The encouragement is to re-consider the primary outcomes and focus them toward missional goals--as they

connect to local churches o Should local churches be led to a focus (similar to Re-Think Church) or empowered to maximize

energies/efforts in their own communities. Which approach can give the best collective statement regarding the ministries of the UMC?

o Could grounding and function be best facilitated by a centralized focus? We believe so. o Diff to tell w/o seeing in action o Looks overwhelming o All o The purpose and outcomes seem functional. o Concern that the specific issues of Church and Society be front and center. o Purposes, Outcomes and Relationships seem to be well laid out, and grounded. In the case of the Relationships, I

do have reservations about how functional it will be without better clarity of connection between the various agencies.

2. What areas of the Charter could be improved with some minor changes?

o Preamble does snot line up across all 5 -- EMT's -- o improved explicit local church action connection o Increase staffing -- o not boldly proclaimed how this is to be taken to local church and then to @ community o Active missions build discipleship not the other way around. Feeling follows action o Add “Economic Justice” language (somewhere in strategy group duties between Gloal Ministries T/F and Hunger

T/F. #2 page of charter) o Secondary Outcome #2 add processes o Prime Outcome #4: sub for “Corporation” possibly ‘business community’ o State core values o Broaden cultural understanding o Clearer examples of primary outcomes, outcome in how facilitated? Homeless, veterans, youth out of orphanages

and foster care. o Is the intended outcome missional or managerial (active/passive) o Have the passions of younger voices been considered? o Is there a clearly identified "product"? o Please consider these aspects of the work: o Discipleship/evangelism (how justice and compassion ministries witness to new believers.) o Works of mercy (how change is effected.) o Advocacy (how attention is given to concerns beyond the UMC context.) o Specificity regarding the task with perhaps fewer words o Add task group under 1b for Economic & Environmental justice. o Concern that with the movement of CORR and COSROW out of justice and compassion ministries, may take the

justice component out of this essential ministry team. o The Strategy Groups look viable, with some additional care given to the reality that Justice and Compassion do

not immediately follow Discipleship, but instead that Discipleship demands Justice and Compassion. There is


concern that the communications on the JCEMT level may not have solid means of dispersing knowledge back to the local church, let alone creating partnerships to see active ministry in this area take hold.


o Wesley -- "If you don't feel it, do it until you feel it; then when you feel it you'll do it" o Should integral part of @ local church "brand"(ing) be justice ministries o Training local cong-- in justice ministries justice ministry is not option -- it is essential part of who we are as U.M's. o Way proposal stated sounds like can choose -- rather than embrace all aspects of justice & compassion -- o Same comment needed for “Economic Justice Language” should be better described o Special attention needs to be directed to the third world countries. o Line 205 p. 6 should be clarified to indicate that this work is part of the JCEMT which formerly was part of B of CS

and B of GM. o Lack of interfaith inclusion in the JCEMT. o Rename the Strategy Groups o How does each EMT interact? o Fund developer role is not clear since it seems to be in each EMT? o Secondary #5 – Clarify. o Primary #1 – How facilitated? o #3 – How facilitated? o Document indicates leading to accountability but how? o Marketing -- The engagement of social networks and contemporary modes of conversation/motivation/community

engagement should be included. o Simplify o Can Primary Outcome #3 re: use of prophetic voice be worded differently to avoid

misunderstanding/misinterpretation without losing the emphasis/energy? o Staffing could use a significant review. Additionally, a need for developed policies for accountability must be

addressed. 4. What areas of the Charter are of concern to the point that they jeopardize the stated outcomes?

o Structure itself may not cause areas of justice to be blended - still "silo" mentality o Staffing structure does happily ☺ correlate to Appendix C, however, inadequate o Not connecting justice & new ministries actual detriment to making disciples of J.C. o (how adjust wording to fit our membership vows) o We feel that there are no concerns which jeopardize. o How will we measure how well this info gets out to AC? o How will we measure if we achieved an outcome? Who develops criteria? How does our diversity impact this? o Missing are indications of flexibility o How is the proposed work materially different from our current operations? o The stated outcomes could be more focused, so that the goals are more tangible and achievable. o The outcomes rely on an intentional collaboration with New Ministries to effect domestic concerns. This is good,

but could/should there also be a statement in the Charter that give credence to domestic issues to balance the stated focus on global issues? (i.e., gang violence, equity and accessibility to resources, other ministries of sustenance -- housing, etc.

o Lack of staffing - particularly support staff. o Support staff (lack of) may/would make it difficult for others to do their jobs (director, etc.) o Concerned that the reference to Church & Society not be removed/deleted or omitted. o Important to keep "church & society" title. o (International/recognition and acceptance) o Without adequate review, understanding, and creation, the staffing needs will leave this group substantially under-

equipped, for development of missions, resource, and connection. Additionally, in a conference such as this one, where each group, faction and committee has a fief it feels a need to protect, clear delineation of current committees, how they will be located or discontinued, and how their concerns will be addressed will stall the project.


o Inadequate -- unconnected o Ditto o Don't know. o Very ambitious


o Is it financial feasible? o Campus Ministers? o Add to network coordinator role “Inter-faith Relationship Connection” o What is plan/guide for shared positions o May need more support staff to meet outcomes. o Engagement of passionate people for work and tasks o So many sub-committees suggest many meeting, how many people can go to all meetings? Time commitments,

travel costs! Internet / teleconference. o Concern w/Network Coord & Market/Fund Developer -- clarify job descriptions, both will be working under 2

Directors, which area might take precedence. o If they cover 2 areas - why not one Director with more support staff to enable that all work generated is covered? o Yes, if the right people occupy the positions. o Concerns: 1. Must be an open application and selection process for all positions. 2. No position should be

exempt from the application and selection process controlled by the respective EMT(s). o Oops! o As noted, several times above, the staffing allocations for this committee could undercut the entire module, due to

lack of connection and time to work with the local church, most especially from “Conference Staff” regardless of how much work any member(s) of the committee is able to invest in such work.


o Board of Discipleship - missing across spectrum - here a good place to tie it o Missing complete staff, accountability o Accountability - seems missing across spectrum -- o Again training to tool & support & help people learn this -- o Extension ministries? The doc is hard to get through.….. o Or is there something we don't need? o Inter-faith relationship o Yes. Inclusion of peace, violence & war in purpose and outcomes. o Line 52 – 59: List of ongoing initiatives unfairly lifts up some and omits others. o Internal resource allocation criteria missing within the EMT o In core values, where is a statement about commitment to spiritual formation (prayer, bible study, etc.) o Jubilee churches, working to reduce punitive debts of third world countries o To what degree can the proposed design offer effective and transformational result? o We do appreciate all your had work. o What is the process of involving new persons in the JCEMT? o Need to spell out skills & background needed for member at large in order to assure that no justice issue is under

represented. o Reduce geographic representation to no more than 5. o We need to identify natural linkage in local churches. Not geographic. o Include examples of church linkage, program and social group working with the EMT Model. o I do wonder at the implicit connection to the Board of Discipleship, especially as noted in the Book of Discipline,

and the failure of this charter to name and respond to those responsibilities. D. Resource EMT Information and Clarification: 1. Are the purpose and primary outcomes clear?

o Purpose is vague, too general o Need definition - how to be good stewards? o To #2 under Primary Objectives, all "Effectively administer benefits…." o In general - need to add verbs to the items o Purpose clearer than the others but are we clear on the word “Steward”? o Purpose statement reads as a string of clichés and flowery institutional language that does not provide inspiration

to anything different or differently o The outcomes are clear o Yes & No. For unfamiliar local church person—new titles are confusing o Pretty much what it is now o Jargon continues to be conference oriented o Not sure if Resource EMT is managing or controlling resources.


o Lots of mandated things – o Key financial & admin functions. o No clear leader for strategy o Leadership EMT is not "Leadership" -- but rather skill development o Where are the checks & balances in the system? o What happens to Conference Leadership Team → does it still exist. o Where does Audit report? o What about record keeping -- separate from archives. o Who analyzes into from Tables 1, 2, 3 o Budget management, estate management?? o What do you do w/competent pastors who only want to be chaplains of churches that don't grow? o What is in the document is clear → but it doesn't seem complete. o It is hard to see that what is being proposed is going to have the stated outcomes. o Yes. o The purposes and outcomes for Resource EMT appear to be the best written, and best identified, especially as it

relates to the needs of the Annual Conference

2. Does the structure reflect the stated outcomes? o No - because it doesn't show the functions/duties of the members. o How will they support the outcome? o Is the Dir of Camping in this EMT or elsewhere? o Yes. Like breaking out HR into separate entity o Given that this Team is mostly comprised of disciplinary mandated committees and functions, it appears to

address those adequately o A new group once again attempting to define structure with new names and new ideas-asking new o questions in a general presentation o New world. No one stated if anything would be dropped o This is pretty much the fiscal structure for the conference. In many ways, this represents how things “really

worked” (as opposed to the stated design) up to and thru the 1970’s, with folks like J. Wesley Hole, A.A. Wright, Will Hildebrand and Harold Johnson shepherding the fiscal administration of this annual conference.

o Yes, but clarity is still elusive o 2008 Book of Discipline, As per par. 625.2 -- The Commission on Equitable Compensation recommends the

conference standards for pastoral support -- not the sub-committee of the Resource EMT -- i.e., "salary administration committee" p.23 line 961-62.

o What about IT -- one head, but no support staff. Is that helpful to the congregations? o We don't understand HR staffing and support? o Confusing, what is different in this structure from the original structure? It would be clearer if we had outcomes for

each subcommittee. o The failure to identify and enumerate the connectional responsibilities leaves much to be addressed, and too

many gaps to address this question in full. There are additional concerns related to staffing, and to the requirements of the Book of Discipline. The more I re-read the Book of Discipline the requirements for committees and persons of Conference Authority are ultimately making the entire redevelopment redundant and unproductive.


o What does "interpretation" in #5 of EMT staffing plan mean? Line #994 o need more verbs o Is Facilities Manager a new position - or is that part of Dir of Finance & facilities job? o Where is the Dir of Camping position? Are the 3 support staff under IT for the Dir of Finance, or for the IT

guy/gal? Please clarify Line 1011 o Yes, with HR not reporting to Finance, they can be more independent in their thought processes. o Could improve the chart on pg. 34. o The staffing is clear o Are we eliminating the Conference Foundation – given that its original intent was that it would function as the

investment arm of the Conference? o Is it financially stable? Understand keeping financial positions marketable? o As we move to a larger retiree base (800 active vs. 600 retired clergy) surviving spouse/job responsibility

increases as does cost. It (is ) important because it enables us to connect. o Virtually identical with what we have now, but perhaps will be better integrated.


o Doesn't appear to be much change from previous structure. o Clear, but implementation needs clarification o No -- we don't understand the support staff for HR. o What about staffing for the Commission on Archives & History? o Less Conference Staff: o No, staffing is clear but unclear on the alignment. o The roles of the staff, as well as the understanding of the functions are not clear and aligned with the outcomes.

For some staff there exists too little oversight and accountability, especially the Director of Finance and Facilities. (Increasingly, I hear from members of the conference a desire to split the existing job into the Disciplinary functions of Director of Administrative Services and a separate Treasurer.) Additionally, there are some jobs that have too much oversight, particularly the Campsite Managers, with no fewer than three bosses, including the Conference Board of Trustees, Director of Finance and Facilities, The Camping Leadership Ministries Director, and the advisory Camping Program Board. This will need to be streamlined. Moreover, the staffing needs outlined in the Charter are not reflected in the staffing chart in Appendix C.

Input and Feedback: General Feedback:

o Future funding based upon needs identified i.e., personal stories, hands on creating relationships o Why are we restructuring? o Of what value is this to member in pew? o What is our apportionment dollar generating? o More interpretation needed o May be condensed but not now simple o Formula for local church apportionment?

1. What areas of the Charter are grounded and functional?

o Primary outcomes are well grounded o Grounded by church requirements o It’s pretty much what we have to do to stay prudent and functional. o All o The Charter seems grounded and functional, however, it is theoretical. Will it work in practice o Information shared and structure appears to be effective management of Conference Personnel o Thank you for defining the scope of the EMT, with grounded needs, and open language, which defines, as well as

allowing for input and development (Such as the needs for legal consulting, and personnel management.

2. What areas of the Charter could be improved with some minor changes? o Highlight the changes that are planned -- this looks very similar to what we currently have. o Does not take into account that our financial base continues to shrink yearly. o The biggest potential weakness I can see is in the area of an outside contracted I.T. Dept. If it is small and

comprised of person(s) who are knowledgeable about the UMC, it may work well. If we go with a large firm solely on the basis of “low bid” cost, it potentially will be a disaster.

o Hard to answer because we don't have functioning info. o For what you auditing but will it work? o More clarification o The need for Archives and History to be located in this area of the Essential Ministry Team is not clearly

articulated. Please revisit the Episcopal Residence Committee composition, and the Board of Pensions, as well as the count of staff named in the document. The staff count is not reconciled to the charter itself, let alone Appendix C, and leaves out the Media Center articulation altogether


o Lines 1035-36: address the use of IT to increase ministry and resources for ministry, for exam: how to use IT o have a capital campaign for camping ministries.

o What areas of the Charter are rightly intended but could be better described or implemented? o Described fine – just shaky due to finances o The biggest potential weakness I can see is in the area of an outside contracted I.T. Dept. If it is small and

comprised of person(s) who are knowledgeable about the UMC, it may work well. If we go with a large firm solely on the basis of “low bid” cost, it potentially will be a disaster.

o How does Media Center fit in here o Any areas in black, not red.


o Change it all o The EMT system and framework is cloudy as job description were very clear. o What is the benefit of this kind of realignment? o The clear use of audits, especially from an outside source (or 2) along with an audit committee would be

appreciated. As an outcome of this, transparency for Conference funds would be improved, and enhance financial trust across the Annual Conference. An additional element of revision would be to split the current office of the Treasurer back into two positions.


o How can we creatively encourage local churches to pay 100% apportionments? ← that needs to be addressed o Outcome 4 – How assets are developed for allocation o It will depend on the staffing: Do the individuals hired know not only the normal skills for the positions in which

they are hired, but can they 1) work well in a non-profit corporation mindset (as opposed to a “for profit” corporate mindset; 2) are able to see their jobs as at lease one-half “customer service” with volunteers from local churches and pastors who can’t balance their own checkbooks; 3) know the UMC disciplinary system to work out interfaces between our polity and what “really works”.

o How much of the projected savings in staffing costs *$1, 104, 093) do we really think is going to come from reducing the number of districts from 8 to 5?

o Me thinks much of that projection f savings is illusory and will lead to less efficient supervision of churches and clergy.

o This would be a more interesting question at other tables. o How are we paying for staffing? o Have you really talked to Commission on archives & History? 3 members does not cut it. We have a part-time

staff not acknowledged. o How does this affect the local church? o How will the local church benefit it? Or align to the new model. o We believe that resources for local churches are primary & should be higher outcome. o The failure to articulate Connectional Responsibilities may cause uncertainty to prevent the adoption of this

Charter, and the larger plan.

5. Does the staffing plan support the primary outcomes? What could be changed or improved? o Facilities Manager = Dir of Camping? That's confusing! The two jobs are really very different. o Lines 1042-1047 = make wording more dynamic, rather than "manage" use "explore, develop, investigate," words

that indicate we're being aggressive/stewards of our proactive. o Resources (e.g. health ins. Plans for clergy/staff -- are we really getting the best price?) o Question: Since the District structures will also be decreasing over time and the Conference staff will be expected

to do more “programming,” will there be Conference Camping program that will take the place of the current 8 District camping programs?

o Yes – but be cautious with payroll as new positions are filled! o The biggest potential weakness I can see is in the area of an outside contracted I.T. Dept. If it is small and

comprised of person(s) who are knowledgeable about the UMC, it may work well. If we go with a large firm solely on the basis of “low bid” cost, it potentially will be a disaster

o Not enough at the moment. This is complex decision stuff. o Get categories straight o IT probably most in??????? o Need staff & Consultant o Don't need conference Staff & Start new churches You need pastors who are willing to work hard o What will be the job description of the new DS. He/She need to be a superior o We need CEO at the head of all of this. Could be a Bishop or someone in charge! o Yes, does the Director of Human Resources have staff support, besides the Coordinator? o The addition of Media Center Staff in the staffing would be helpful. I would like to see the Camp Site Staff limited

to one area of direction, and accountability, with appropriate checks on practice and authority placed elsewhere. The creation of two positions for the current Treasurer could alleviate many of the frustrations currently experienced by the consolidation of authority and influence in a few hands, and what is sure to be seen across the Annual Conference as “shrinking” numbers of participants on the “power levels” of the Conference.


o Is the # of Resource EMT members workable? Or is it optimistic? o How different is this arrangement from what we do now?


o How does this new structure change the budgeting process? o We are trying to locate clear language and functions that point out how any of this will impact the local church and

its ministries beyond what they are asked to give in apportionments o Any emphasis on how the structure – form and function that points to how local church benefits would be greatly

appreciated. o No – but continue to monitor cost and efficiency. o This EMT (as opposed to the others) is pretty well self-contained and integrated. o Yes to both questions. o Process is still too complex and conference oriented. Local church seems lost in discussion. o Church or Archives & History o There needs to more communication. o The inclusion of the Nominating Committee in this area of the 5EMT proposal may make the most sense, as it is a

form of resourcing the conference with people. E. Navigation EMT Information and Clarification: 1. Are the purpose and primary outcomes clear?

o Is this EMT a new name for Council on Ministries? o Where is the role of laity strengthened by participation in A.C. EMT's. Is it balanced? o No...there is nothing in the purpose statement bullet points navigating. o Where is the navigation for? Is it for this plan Or is it meant to be used by the local church? CLARIFY! o Are you a steward or a helmsperson? o Outcomes aren't stating outcomes or goals. Making it not measurable. o What does it mean to “monitor the faith inclusion of gifted leaders”? (p 29) CLARIFY! o Purpose: is clear o Outcome: concern not enough local community focus o Define “empower” o Who is responsible for achieving the primary outcomes, and how are they held accountable? o Should the term by “church” or “faith community” o Yes. The purpose is clear. o In the outcomes, we suggest that you should include some relationships with the General Church o Language too flowery and not straight to the point – concrete language i.e. “process of accountability” instead of

“landmarks to keep us in line with mission.” o Use vocabulary of culture, not scripture, i.e. “fruits” o There is no purpose statement. It is a belief statement a values statement o Very Heady o Primary purpose = Expected outcomes? o There is no primary outcomes o Expected outcomes o Is the responsibility of the Committee on Episcopacy discerning the direction of AC? Why? This should be the

role of the whole Navigation Team. o Objective and Implementation do not match o Shared Vision: What is the shared vision? Need to clarify. Isn’t Communication more about telling others about

vision? Who develops the shared vision? Where does it come from? Not role of Communicating to develop this o These 2 do not make sense. Needs to be rewritten before it commented on o Is this about supervision and accountability? How is this different than 4? o What is Faith inclusion of gifted levels? o What does this have to do with objective and implementation? o Purpose: Lacks a strong “Verb” e. g. “empower” o Feels move vague than some of the others. o Seems to contain more church “buzz” o Word / terms. o Outcomes: How are these outcome expectations any different than the present expectations? Should they be? o No -- This EMT charter read the last clear. o Statement of purpose is so universal we had to place to "land", that is no sense of how this is lived out. o No discernable/tangible measurable outcomes or results? o This seems to move ambiguous of 5 EMTs. o Least language about accountability/responsibility to local church


o Laity only respond (p. 29, line 1198). o We need one primary mission statement for all 5 EMT's o 6 Condense into something easier to convey < like an "elevator" speech. o Add "disciples of Jesus Christ" to the Preamble o Is this truly vision driven Or Is it primarily resource/discipline driven? o Purpose – Not a clear statement of purpose. Needs to be more plainly stated; in clear language for laity, and

general public. o Outcomes - #3 clear #4 clear #1 obj. not clear #2 obj. not clear #5 objectives not so clear as implementation

statement, If obj. were left out for all #s implementation is clear. Preacher speaks gets in the way. o Purpose – too wordy, vague. How will we measure objectives & goals? Clarity of direction. o The purpose statement is good in that it is scripturally oriented and spiritually based, but feels a bit general. o Line 1105 – “it’s” should be “its,” when using the possessive form. o The other four EMT statements are more succinct, and clearer. o The outcomes are written differently than the other four. The outcomes, however, are written in a very clear

manner, with a logical progression.

2. Does the structure reflect the stated outcomes? o What direction/influence flow does the structure chart on page 36 go? "Top Down" or Navigation "up" -- hard to

see a powerful influential Navigation EMT when surrounded by the larger entities. o The outcomes seem better articulated as we look at the Function Groupings (p30) o These seem like clearer outcomes for EMT o Please articulate why CORR @ COSROW have been moved to Nav from JCEMT. o * Connection & support with navigation needs clarification o * And how does this ministry take, or propel justice ministries to local church o * Structure still doesn't hold local churches accountable o * Still, staffing structure, too Ivory Tower, -- without enough local church connection. o There are most interconnections than shown o How can these strategies be implemented o Looks good on paper. o We don’t know yet. We need experience and try and see how it works. o The idea of engagement is good, but On-going Mission and Resourcing Mission is not clear. o Please add some examples o We are not sure how it will be. o Let’s give it a try o Concern of financial waste and lack of accountability in District transitioning, i.e. close office as D.S. position is

discontinued. Is timeframe healthy? Is decision making process correct? Lack info on how things will change (outside of S.A. Dist)

o No! o What do the functional groupings of Navigation on page 30 have to do with the 6 outcomes on pages 28 – 29? o The Nominating committee’s structure is poorly designed. Most of its members will be burdened with other tasks.

It is also less democratic (on centraling the power in the hands of a few o Yes, but seems too general, cumbersome and broad ranging still feels too bureaucratic. Representative groups

do not seem to hold much true “power” in the Annual Conference. Fear the few who do will usurp The Leadership / Navigation role.

o Sort of -- Steps to achieve outcomes became a little more specific and structure more so. o How is this group going to function - how will it do its work? o Who as authority to make things happen within 5 EMTs? Relation of #1 to #4? P. 28 o This seems to be a radical re-casing of Conf. Committee on Episcopacy - relationship to EMT? o 1219 Key EMT's Reps from other 4 EMT's should come o Not an advisory only position o Ethic representatives to be on each EMT o Cross-cultural or "multi-ethnic" bridges sub-group to be moved to Navigation including Anglos o If we are trying to duce district because of finances, why the e year plan instead of the 2 year plan? o Why are we keeping the 8 administrative Assistant when we drop to 7 and 6? o The structure described in the draft is so large that it is difficult to tell what is what. The layout of this part is very

confusing. o Too many people! Doesn’t stream-line. Structure seems to be redundant-mirrors all other EMT. o The structure seems fine, although it is ponderous – can there be a brief outline to begin


o The very fact that the preamble to the Navigation EMT Charter is substantively different from the 4 other areas of ministry is disconcerting. That the preamble then addresses purpose as to serve as the head of the new “hydra” approach, rather than that of another team, merely exemplifies the dynamic problem of the Annual Conference to continually deal in power play moves rather than actual ministry. That this is the “accountability group” for all the other areas with no discernable method of accountability for this group in particular is distressing and dangerous to the entire Annual Conference. As to the definite areas which need clarification, I would point to 5) Effective Leadership Development, which “monitor[s] the faith inclusion of gifted leaders”, as an area that requires additional information and discernment.


o Not clear. DS's Admin Asst, Navigation 3 support staff 2 Staff Positions, 1st lay & clergy elected (16 at large)

o What relationships will be maintained between conference entities & staff and general boards & agencies, and other opportunities

o Explain Exempt Staff more. Assigned by Bishop (Exec Admin assist?) o This feels like the same thing we used to have o Who is the Nav Facilitator on p29? o Clear but not certain correctly aligned o Suggestion -- Insure direct communication with JCEMT & New Ministries EMT o Suggestion -- Justice Ministry & New Ministries need to be more strongly related for communication o Network Coord & fund developer -- need o More local church conversation o More attention -- directly to & with local church o No. Way too much to comprehend clearly. o No. o It is unconstitutional for the Bishop to directly supervise AC staff o Is decreasing the number of DS’s mission driven or finance driven? o It seems decreasing the number of DS is inconsistent with other purposes. o The implementation of “Expected Outcomes?” could be more focused o We think so. o We struggled w/ how the results of the navigation EMT impact @ the local level. o No. The person to 'focus & guide mission * ministry' (p. 29, lines 1207 - 1208) completely unclear o Appendix C - Navigation staffing chart does not match lines 1319-1328 o How are the district superintendents pastoring the pastors? Have we thought about re-thinking what the D.S.

does for pastors? o As we read it, we have doubled the Administrative task of the D.S. which is in conflict with the stated desire of

supporting/equipping local congregations and pastors to be effective in ministry. o Page 32 lines 1319-1323 – too much power for the Bishop. Doubt that 1 person can do all he communication for

the whole conference even using 21st century tech. Nav. needs another staff person other than admin. D.S., Bishop.

o Why the assignment for exempt staff assigned by Bishop? o Staffing does not seem to be as clearly aligned with the structure and outcomes, such as how the exempt staff

relates to the connectional responsibilities. o I would like to see a 1-1 staffing chart, for this Team, as well as others. It appears to me that the Assistant to the

Bishop has been discreetly renamed to avoid the difficulty of putting this position before the Annual Conference, and that smacks of underhandedness. Additionally, the make-up of the Team is noted as consisting of a Navigation Facilitator, and the Exempt Staff appointed by the Bishop. The Navigation Facilitator is then dropped from the Staffing Plan. Further, the 8 Administrative Assistants are not accounted for in the Appendix C, nor is it clear that there is a step-down effect for the Cabinet Assignments, either in the Staffing Plan or in Appendix C. I am also unclear on the relationship of the “Executive Director of Finance and Administration” to this arm of the 5EMTs, even as I quarrel with the conjoined position itself.

Input and Feedback: General Feedback:

o Statement of Purpose o Line 1085 86 – 87 What happened to grace o Line 1090 – 1092 Purpose Statement? o 85 – 88 Values? o 94 --1102 Values?


o Benchmarks, not bndmarks? o Is “vs” the A.C., other EMT’s, who? o Expected Outcomes and/or Results o Did not use term primary outcomes. Why? o Clarity of Direction

Why Committee on Episcopacy part of visioning Implementation discernment beyond the Bishop Who discerns, who implements? Who decides vision? Question of Episcopal authority?

o How do we develop a shared vision? o No issues, except change/remove work catalyst with “responsible for” o Implementation doesn’t match with the objectives o Typo needed line 1155 o Who is holding the Navigation EMT accountable? o Line 1159 What does “faith inclusion” mean? Faithful? o Define “gifted leaders” o Will the Nav. EMT have a way to help the Nominating Comm be effective (accountable) o The purpose and primary purposes not clear to many members around the table. o Navigation EMT Chart doesn’t include several groups, e.g., R&R, COSROW o Other EMT’s do not have staff sitting on to EMT’s o (they are under the team) Line 1200 +1- e.g. Assist to Bishop o 1312 Who has authority/responsible to choose a primary director of an EMT. Navigation team rather than just

Bishop. o type “tacking” (or plan) o Does the Comm on Episcopacy have the power hold a new bishop to the changes and structure? o Who holds the Bishop and Cabinet accountable for their actions? o What happens with D.S.’s with larger districts and their responsibilities into Navigation EMT and Nominating

Comm. 1. What areas of the Charter are grounded and functional?

o Functional Groupings -- Will these 20 some people meet throughout the year or only at AC? o Functional Groupings -- Will they "trump" the Navigation core team since they are listed as having the "final

decision" at AC o CLT & Navigation team redundant? o It is Confusing. . . . . o The affirmation of the need of spiritual vision and influence in the Conference to equip the local church. o The functional Groupings of Nav. o The Partnerships & relationships to other EMT. o Grounded inspiratal(?) directions (living witnesses) rather than administrative o The charter areas are grounded very well…the functionality seems a little less clear. Can there be a more concise

synopsis? o The Preamble and expected outcomes are grounded and functional o efficiency and effectiveness o None! o Statement of Purpose: Navigation is to provide landmarks for mission. (Not “keep us in line”) o Statement of Purpose: Informed by present reality – future hope. o We feel the only groundedness present is in the stated awareness of the above needs. o Connectional responsibilities & EMT staffing plan & assignments. o Define the terms "grounded" and "functional". o Charter too nebulous & wordy to answer this question o Navigation in particular needs succinct, clear language o This structure could result in anything from a ruling group to a useful facilitating group for other EMTs to a wheel-

spinning, business-as-usual group. o How do these scriptures ground this EMT? Unclear o We realize much will remain unknown until this model is implemented. Still: issue of trust + vision arise. o Objectives are grounded bec they are consistent with the other four o Staffing o Is this the area that everything got dumped in? how is this going to connect the local churches with Navigation

EMT?


o The charter areas are grounded very well…the functionality seems a little less clear. Can there be a more concise synopsis?

o The Preamble and expected outcomes are grounded and functional o Precise meaning of “Navigation” is not clearly stated o The need for accountability across the various EMTs is made all the more apparent in this document. I applaud

the desire to try to incorporate that into this Team, but disagree with the implementation. I agree that we need to be working toward the future, and wonder what happened to understanding our past, the history we have created, and the way it informs our current realities. I wholeheartedly hope that the ministry of Navigation would be Incarnational, present with our people, and our congregations in effective and imminent ways. I love that the Navigation Team is going to be affirming Vision, which I see as a ground-up movement, especially as the predominant model of the church, United Methodist and others, is that of imposing Vision from the top down.

2. What areas of the Charter could be improved with some minor changes?

o Style question – is it intentional that the Navigation presentation style is so different in language and titling, e.g., the terms primary outcomes and secondary outcomes are used in the other four but not in the Navigation language (the John and Synoptics difference).

o Statement of purpose can be improved with some more specific tangible purposes. o The EMT framework and particularly the connectional responsibilities and staffing plan assignments o Too many words, lack of focus over time. Who decides and how long will that be in place (primary foci change

every few years) o We need the language of a business plan with less (not total omission) of poetry. Keep an overarching inspiring

image o None! o The changes needed seem major not minor. o Statement of purpose. o Too ethereal. We couldn't connect w/ the language even though we understood it. Seemed all "head" and no

"heart." o Simplify language throughout. o Define Bishop's role in relation to staffing plan. o Line 1186 - a loving God WHO guides o Line 1166 - what does "faith inclusion" mean? o Line 1176 - Why capitalize "Sister & Brothers"? o Line 1322 - Tracking not tacking o Line 1217 - What does "self-populated" mean?? o Be sure there are open lines of communication with General Boards.. o Better articulation of relationships between objectives and implementation o Clarity, clarity, clarity! Needs revision to match other EMT’s. Specify objectives & goals that are measurable. o Style question – is it intentional that the Navigation presentation style is so different in language and titling, e.g.,

the terms primary outcomes and secondary outcomes are used in the other four but not in the Navigation language (the John and Synoptics difference).

o Statement of purpose can be improved with some more specific tangible purposes. o The EMT framework and particularly the connectional responsibilities and staffing plan assignments. o Lack of clarity as to whether proposed Navigation EMT is a reshuffling or repackaging of an old conference

structure. Language is not clear o The continued use of the extended cabinet and appointive cabinet both serve their purposes, but I would expect

more accountability of the Appointive Cabinet to retain Appointive Decisions to that body, and to exclude the Extended Cabinet, except in the case of discerning the future and vision of the church. I would hope this clarifying language would be included in future drafts of the 5EMT proposal. I especially resent the composition of the Nominations Committee, with so much power granted to the Bishop, and Navigation in particular. (I recommended elsewhere that perhaps Nominations would be better served to exist under Resource). I am not convinced that the Conference Leadership Team, in whole or in part needs to remain a part of the new structure, as the very task it was given at its inception was as an Ad Hoc Committee to develop a new structure, and refine the scope, number and participation of Conference Committees and their make-up.


o The Navigation hub in the windmill only goes in circles ☺ o Please explain the Task Forces called by Nav. o Please write the whole document in plain English and in a consistent format ** o Connectional responsibilities (31-32). Where do fit into the diagrams (eggs).


o Statement of purpose; EMT system and framework; staffing plan and assignments o EMT descriptions do not list relationship with DS’s. o It’s all encompassing AND it’s all too much. o Expected Outcomes results o The objectives are often commendable but implementation does not appear to substantially achieve the objective o What does supporting the Bishop by Committee on Episcopacy have to do with developing clarity of direction for

AC? o What does communicating the shared vision by Communications have to do with the development of shared

vision o Over all continued detachment from the local context of ministry. o Simplify language throughout. o Define Bishop's role in relation to staffing plan. o And what does "paints a vision through inspiration" (line 1097) mean? o Who makes the decisions for all 5 EMT's? o What if 1 EMT's decision is not in line with the mission of the UMC. o Connectional Resp unfinished o Explain primary purpose of Navigation EMT, & relationship with other EMT’s i.e. – to keep other EMT’s to be

silos? o How will work on other EMT’s be enhanced by being a part of Navigation? o Statement of purpose; EMT system and framework; staffing plan and assignments. o Relationship to empowering local church is not clear in the charter. Will the local level need to refocus vision

based on guidance from the “Navigation” EMT? Charter is not clear on this aspect. o The desire for accountability, as named in system accountability is an absolute, with a more comprehensive

model for multi-EMT accountability shared in a system of checks and balances, which is currently flouted, despite the framework supplied by the Book of Discipline.


o The staffing as stated doesn't show changes and could lead to suspicion unless clarified and would jeopardize this.

o We are concerned about the Nav. Facilitator & potential abuse of power & role. o Is the Nav. Fac. The CLT leader or a Staff person? o Is Staff, shouldn't facilitate EMT? o Are the Nav Facilitator on 29 & 30 the same person? o Just greater clarity and room for simplicity (snapshot), because the charter is very wordy and ponderous o Overwhelming volume and flowery language exacerbates it. o Too many layers. o Will never survive pastor’s inbox. (Or layperson’s) o Needs bullet points. o Use language tangible to younger age groups. o Since it is not clear what the stated outcomes. It's hard to answer this question. Since it is not clear what the

outcome, there is no clear reason any of the "structure" to exist. o Why is there a need for expanded Navigation? How does this relate to the purpose? o The role of the Bishop appears to violate the constitutional separation of powers. And if this is true, then the

whole structure could be ruled unconstitutional. o The Bishop should not be part of the Navigation EMT and certainly may not be the chair of Navigation Team or be

a voting member. o It is disturbing that this EMT sent so much out as "unfinished" -- See bottom half of page 31. So that members of

the AC will not be able to comment on this section during "vetting" session. o This EMT should not be voted on at this year's AC. It needs another year for development. Comment o Expected outcomes and / or results section. o Connection between objective and implementation seem: o 1. Absent o 2. Lifeless o 3. Lacking in structure to actually produce outcomes o Using the metaphor of “Navigation” This structure is only capable of leading us to places we have already been. o Evidenced also by the staffing structure that holds no new vision & energy. o None o Question (which you implied received much discussion) - Do COSRW & R&R belong here or JCEMT? o Lines 1237 - 38


o This model Elevates these 2 to level beyond justice…injustice to other JC groups? o The CLT presenters did a good job of emphasizing resourcing local church -- how does this EMT make local

church center? o Do not refer to Navigation EMT as the "brains," because it diminishes the other 4 EMT's o Lines 1294-1297 blurs the line between The Bishop and the Annual Conference. o Line 1205-concentrates all the formal decision making by the Bishop, not EMTs. o Is this going to slow EMT’s down? Too much structure? o Just greater clarity and room for simplicity (snapshot), because the charter is very wordy and ponderous. o Implementation statements need to be made more specific. o The incomplete nature of many of the areas, as well as the quiet inclusion of controversial positions into new

nomenclature may provide the “Eyes-Wide-Shut” approval of the EMTs, but is more likely to create an “Absolutely NOT” response to what feels like incomplete thoughts, poor planning, and unclear understandings, rather than the more dangerous appearance of “pulling the wool over the eyes” of the Annual Conference.


o Why are all but 2 of the staff assigned by the Bishop? o We need some cross-pollination. o Again, clarify the connectional responsibilities and assignments of staff, e.g., the list of responsibilities are quite

long. The communication exempt staff has a much smaller list of responsibilities than others based on the connectional responsibilities.

District Staff Conf Navigation Staff Fiscal concern of keeping district administrative staff w/o DS. Is necessary?

Good communication direction is essential.

Is necessary? Gaps exist now and will likely increase. Seems like too much staff.

o Need to keep same number of DS, until can show how to achieve goals with fewer DS's o The exempt staff person to guide the mission (p. 29) should be responsible to the Navigation EMT and chosen by

the Navigation EMT not the Bishop. o Expected outcomes and / or results section. o Connection between objective and implementation seem: 1. Absent 2. Lifeless 3. Lacking in structure to

actually produce outcomes o Using the metaphor of “Navigation” This structure is only capable of leading us to places we have already been. o Evidenced also by the staffing structure that holds no new vision & energy. o We'd have a better idea if statement/outcomes were clearer. It seemed like the plan supported but we had

questions o Director of communications is critical o How many staff do you need to Navigate? o Again, clarify the connectional responsibilities and assignments of staff, e.g, the list of responsibilities are quite

long. The communication exempt staff has a much smaller list of responsibilities than others based on the connectional responsibilities.

o Line 1319 needs clarification regarding this position o The Staffing Plan has many holes, as already noted, but the greater question lies not within the realm of the

EMTs, but rather with the redistricting plan, and the difficulty of creating and implementing this new model. I do wonder at the possible change in implementation for Conference staff, as it relates to the model set forth by one of the Alabama Conferences, whereby the Conference Staff were farmed out to local churches, for their offices, and for part-time deployment, which makes a Conference Position less of a career, and more in touch with the politics and nuances of the local church, as well as creating a greater connection to other local churches.


o This is a plan for the Relationship between the local church and the A.C. -- There is no understanding of the relationship between the General Church, and Global church and the A.C.

o Are there things in the BOD that we want send to General Conference as a petition to change in efforts to live out our vision?

o Does having the Bishop on the NAV Committee cause any institutional or Constitutional problems? o Could BHECM be more Nav than Leadership? o In general, it needs to have a snapshot view, with the longer explanation to follow. This would be especially true

for those who aren’t as sophisticated in English. The staffing and connectional responsibilities don’t tie up neatly. o 50% of the words could go. We are concerned about # of people in implementation of the plan.


o This EMT seems to be a strange marriage of "functional groups" like Nominating, Rules, Sessions….and groups that do vision.

o -- Need more time at AC to discuss this. Can we have 2 more plenaries instead of 2 learning circles? o Yes: The navigation charter deeply concerns us. We feel it lacks. o Passion, vision, evidence of the Holy Spirit, structures that would work as a true change agent, work as a true

change agent. o An authoritative voice in the structure / staffing that is not invested in a position of power o Where will there be more specific, measurable outcomes. --i.e.,…If the Bishop said, "in the next 4 years we're

going to plant 50 new faith communities." Or "We're going to expect each local church to develop/expand 4 new ministries focusing on each of the 4 foci." We would know what was expected and could act.

o Also -- Will the Nav. EMT be responsible for insuring there will be specific, measureable goals and objectives coming from the other 4 EMTS?

o Another Example. Pastors are "contagious". That is they will infect their people with their own vision/passion for "Christ" and the kingdom of God -- or not. How will the Nav. EMT infect the whole body (AC)?

o These are intriguing ideas: 1240 - 1254 Clarify "High attendance" And Middle-sized churches? o Mission vision discernment (lines 1235-38) o Why does it differ in composition from Articulation & assessment groups: (1240 - 1254) o This model sets us up for disunity & disagreement. o Seems to mix politics w/principle on cube analysis o This reorganization requires a huge cultural shift for our AC. How does this EMT support & enable that shift? o In general, it needs to have a snapshot view, with the longer explanation to follow. This would be especially true

for those who aren’t as sophisticated in English. o The staffing and connectional responsibilities don’t tie up neatly. o Descriptions are passive - looking for measurable goals or what is the change? o I do continue to ruminate on the issues of creating only more layers to the Conference Structure, rather than

minimizing or streamlining the structure. And the needs of Committees required by the Book of Discipline and the additional layer of framework evident in Navigation only serves to add to those questions.

EMT Comments by EMTadot.s3.amazonaws.com/685C3CC7072D400FA33F4D43… · · 2011-05-31The...

Documents

Transcript of EMT Comments by EMTadot.s3.amazonaws.com/685C3CC7072D400FA33F4D43… · · 2011-05-31The...