Meeting for Sufferings S/10/07/D
A Framework For Action Priority G: Using our resources well
Responses from meetings
1. Snapshot
1.1: There were 181 responses: 165 from Local Meetings (35% of total number) and 16 from Area Meetings (23% of total number). This is a significantly greater number than the 89 responses received in response to the full Framework for Action consultation. Most responses were very thorough and carefully considered.
1.2: Issues emerging from the consultation:
- There is some concern about London-centred resources heavily outweighing those in northern areas.
- Central work: nearly all meetings consider involvement in central work to be beneficial, allowing them to ‘keep in touch’ and gain a sense of wider community. Meeting for Sufferings representatives were singled out as offering a valuable communication link. There was still some lack of awareness about how to become involved in central work and a clear need to widen the pool of service and representation at a central level.
- Appointments: many smaller meetings take a pragmatic approach to filling roles, deciding which are essential and those they can do without. Most meetings recognise that there is more they can do to make the most of the skills and interests of Friends within their meetings.
- Meeting Houses: most Meetings value their meeting houses greatly although recognise that they require a significant amount of money and time to maintain.
- Communications: most meetings are using e-mail, however all are keenly aware of not excluding those who are not IT users. Videoconferencing was mentioned by several meetings and the costs of installation and equipment should be investigated further.
2. General comments about the review:
2.1:
Many meetings found the consultation a valuable exercise: Northamptonshire AM noted that those who took part in survey found it very useful giving ‘Friends the opportunity to meet together to consider matters that are often taken for granted.’
2.2:
Nottingham LM was impressed by the level of questioning from QSC and commented that it ‘suggests an exciting way forward for the whole of BYM.’ Darlington LM noted that it led to a useful dialogue ‘as we found gaps we could seek to fill ourselves in the way we work and relate to each other.’ Billericay LM also found the process of considering questions very helpful: ‘we accept that they may challenge how we do things and even disturb our established practices’. Tunbridge Wells felt similarly challenged to think about their resources. Lewes LM, Disley LM, Cockermouth LM, Welwyn LM and Gainsborough LM all commented on the usefulness of the questionnaire and Stone LM noted that, while the questions were a bit vague but the discussion it sparked was good.
2.3:
There were a few exceptions: Some Meetings found it difficult to respond to the questions (Monkseaton, North Scotland AM struggled to come up with a meaningful reply to such a wide ranging request and Lancaster LM found it extremely difficult to persuade ‘many Friends to put pen to paper’). Kings Lynn provided a brief response but felt it was best for their AM to deal with queries. Friargate Meeting felt unclear about why written responses were necessary and what the purpose of the consultation was: ‘as a large meeting, we find it difficult to respond to the individual and detailed questions set out in the paper.’ Others simply did not have the time to deal with the consultation in depth (Stafford, Leicester, Muswell Hill, Scarborough).
2.4:
Clun Valley LM felt that responding the questions was a waste of their resources and were critical of the ‘enormous amount of paperwork sent from Friends House.’ They would prefer to concentrate on local issues.
2.5:
Northumbria AM had concerns about the nature of the review, in particular that it was ‘not looking more profoundly into how our resources are used and has an apparent emphasis on our properties.’ They also noted that the centring of our resources in London and Friends House ‘does not challenge, nor provide an opportunity for Friends elsewhere to make a more significant contribution to our Society’s evolution.’ They hope that new communication possibilities of information technology are explored in this context.
2.6:
Almeley LM shared a similar concern about the merits of carrying out what they saw as essentially a cost-benefit analysis of a Quaker meeting. Ross on Wye LM commented that queries about resources were felt to be too narrow placing too much emphasis on buildings without recognising that it is the people who are far more important.
3. Sharing Skills:
The responses included numerous examples of help offered between meetings. Nearly all meetings cited examples of help within Area Meetings. Only two meetings noted that they have assisted others both within and outside area meeting (Llandrindod and Pales LM, Redland)
3.1 Events/ activities:
Meetings exchange speakers and share responsibility for events and other joint activities. Quaker Quest in particular has stimulated exchanges of support and ideas (Chesterfield, Cirencester, Disley, Ditchling, Loughborough, Marple, Oxford, Hexham LM, Stocksfield, Whitehaven LM). Other meetings share Woodbrooke on the road courses (Andover)
Joint support for particular endeavours include Banbury and Evesham working with Friends from Central England and Oxford and Swindon AMs over holding Meeting for Worship outside RAF Croughton each month over the past 10 years.
Meeting of Friends in Wales offer help to Area meetings on viable approaches to electronic communication.
Other examples include Midhurst Lm asking for help on conduct of funerals and St Andrews assisting a meeting for Clearness.
Ditchling Friends individually assisted Brighton Friends with hosting the Tapestry exhibition in February 2010
3.2 Support to smaller meetings:
Intervisitation schemes are common among meetings,with some having Flying/ Travelling elders teams offering support to designated meetings (Bideford, Marple, Sidmouth, Torbay)
Support is often offered to and received by smaller or newly formed meetings (Spiceland, Lancaster, Bedminster, Aylsham, Bolton, Carlton Hill, Cambridgeshire AM, Finchley, Hereford, Lancaster, Northwest London AM, Nottingham LM, Wells-next-the-sea.)
3.3 Resolving disputes in meetings:
In Bedminster LM, one member is part of their AM Conflict Resolution Group and has been active in working with another local meeting which has been experiencing problems. When Bedminster itself was experiencing difficulty with a disruptive attender they received support from another local meeting. Similarly Llandrindod & Pales LM asked for help from AM when experiencing conflict in their meeting, Salisbury LM has enlisted the help of a conciliation team and Bewdley has offered help when disharmony occurred in another meeting.
3.4 Building projects:
Some meetings turned to others for help over building projects, for example, Balby LM, when undertaking a meeting house development, was able to draw on extensive help from Sheffield Meeting who also provided models of policies and job descriptions. Heswall LM received financial help from another meeting when their roof required expensive repair work. Aberdeen has helped financially for building work by meetings around the country. Jordans were helped in their restoration project by other meetings. Maidstone LM regularly offers advice on building projects, Wrexham received help when building their meeting house and Wandsworth guided other meetings on Premises matters.
3.5 Treasurers/ other roles:
Harrogate notes that their LM Treasurer received support from other Treasurers in area and finds the annual conference of Treasurers ‘hugely helpful.’ Bolton has asked for legal advice on health and safety and employment issues.
4. Impact of Central work:
4.1:
Almost all meetings, while recognising that energy can be drawn away, recorded that the benefit of those serving centrally outweighs any negative impact. It ‘broadens horizons’, helps meetings feel ‘connected with the wider Quaker world’ and ‘inspires confidence.’ Redland LM noted that ‘we do not regard service at central or local level as separate but as complementary.’ Many of those Friends who serve centrally also tend to be those who make the most contribution to the life of their home Meetings.
4.2:
Many Meetings observed in particular that Meeting for Sufferings is a useful channel of communication. Bradford on Avon commented that ‘when one of our own LM Friends attended Meeting for Sufferings we were very well informed. Swindon noted that ‘it is good to have an interchange of ideas and information with the Friends serving on Meeting for Sufferings, who in turn are working hard to encourage two-way communication’ (other meetings who highlighted the benefits of Meeting for Sufferings include Abingdon, Bakewell, Carlton Hill, Chesham , Jordans, Almeley LM, Balby LM, Billericay LM, Bolton LM, Ditchling LM, Forest of Dean LM, Frenchay LM, Frome LM, Kingston LM, Meeting for Friends in Wales, Salisbury LM, Sheffield AM, Sidcot LM, Swindon LM, Witney LM, Wotton LM.)
4.3:
Others are less certain of the benefits of Friends involvement with centrally managed work, while Hertford Meeting noted that it ‘gives us more confidence,’ it was also aware of the risk of too much busyness. Gainsborough noted that it can be negative for small meetings where it appears that demands are being made to do things ‘as they are done nationally’, which is not always possible or desirable. Maidstone LM noted that ‘we do feel that the energy of Friends who serve on central bodies is taken out of our meeting to some extent and that these Friends can feel pressured at times.’ Bedminster also commented that while it helps to widen horizons, it does ‘reduce time and energy available for our own needs.’
4.4:
Some meetings, for example Leiston LM and Torbay LM, still feel a lack of connection with central work. Harrogate wrote that they need more information for the meeting about how to serve at a national level, explaining what is involved, especially with regard to the Quaker Life network. Oxford LM propose that those involved in central work have more responsibility in communicating with local and area meetings about their work, ‘this could have the effect of making the issues come alive for Friends locally.’ Blackheath noted that ‘we perceive a risk that central committees may be drawn from quiet a limited pool of known Friends. Would like to see wider use if Quaker service information sheet forms.’ The Meeting of Friends in Wales noted the need to increase the offer of service forms from Welsh Friends for BYM appointments. An example of good practice is Jesus Lane LM where they held a successful meeting for office holders and Friends who work with central committees to share their experiences with members and attenders of the meeting to attract new volunteers. This was well publicised.
4.5:
Marple LM questions whether we ‘need all this organisation’. ‘BYM is not a cosy club, but it tries to be everything to everybody. Friends House makes it top-heavy: more chiefs than Indians.’ They note that material received from London has no relevance to them and the Society needs something comparable in the North.
5. People:
5.1:
Smaller meetings tend to adopt informal nominations processes. The limited pool of those willing to serve, forces meetings to think more creatively. Many meetings, such as Swarthmoor, Bewdley, Ashford, Bradford on Avon, Chesterfield, Come to good, Darlington, Godalming, Minehead, Newton Stewart, Keswick, Portsmouth, Preston and Llandrindod & Pales LM have struggled to fill roles, noting that it is often a case of too few people doing too much of the work. There are concerns about ageing membership e.g. Almeley, Sheringham and the ‘burden’ of taking on roles.
5.2:
Many meetings need to be pragmatic in deciding which roles are essential – many have amalgamated the roles of elder and overseer, for example, Aberdeen, Acomb and Esher. Almeley LM notes that ‘not all jobs are essential, just because historically they have always been done’, Alnwick is similarly realistic about its human resources. Many feel that Clerking by one or two members would be an onerous responsibility. In Bradford-on-Avon there is a Clerking team of seven Friends – one co-ordinates, the others clerk monthly business meetings in pairs thereby sharing the burden of responsibility. Hertford and Gloucester also have a rota for clerking, Wandsworth and Wimbledon have a team of co-clerks. Cockermouth noted that in 2008 all individual roles were replaced with teams. Bolton Am and LM are running a series of workshop sessions, focussing at present on the role of clerks and seeking to determine how far the various duties can be separated and devolved to a team.
5.3:
Many smaller meetings do not have Nominations committees and rely on informal sharing of skills. It may be easier in a smaller meeting for people to know each others areas of interest and expertise, as is the case for example in Chesham. But many meetings, even those with Nominations committees, find there is limited opportunity for Friends to talk about what skills they have. Adel LM hold shared lunches and learning groups to get to know each other better. Abingdon comments that ‘it is the job of our nominations committee to know people and they are helped by our ‘friendly faces’ profiles in our newsletter’. However, Ludlow LM finds the nomination process secretive and closed and argues that it is difficult to know what talents people had to offer. Many meetings also stress the need to allow greater opportunity for feedback.
5.4:
Aberdeen Friends commented that there should be more opportunity for Friends to actively offer their skills. They suggest that the ‘yellow form’ method used by BYM could be adopted at a local level so that individuals have the opportunity of offering their various skills and interests. Wotton, Lichfield, Chilterns AM and Nailsworth LM also suggest that perhaps there is a need for the equivalent of the yellow form. Cotherstone further recommend that the old style nominations letter is reinstated. Salisbury noted that last year the nominations committee adapted questionnaires provided by Quaker Life and other Local Meetings to compile a list of Members' and Attenders' interests and skills. ‘The response was very good and helped enormously when we had to set up new committees or augment existing ones for responsibilities with the new Meeting House.’ However Lewes recently adopted use of yellow form and found it was off-putting to some. Harrogate and Taunton also observed that the questionnaire was not always successful. Taunton is looking at developing a closer link between nominations, Elders and Overseers to better discern names
5.5 Support:
As Chelmsford noted, ‘it is vital to stop assuming that everyone knows ‘how it is done.’ Many meetings recognise support is not always apparent and more can be done to support training. Others e.g. Nottingham, Stocksfield, and Redland are grateful for Woodbrooke courses. Meeting of Friends in Wales wrote ‘We believe that cooperation with Woodbrooke could be pivotal in helping to support meetings with training for roles of responsibility within the society.’
Meetings are spending more time drafting job descriptions for essential roles such as clerk, treasurer and overseer but again recognise that further support could be provided for all roles.
Several meetings - Nailsworth, Cambridgeshire and Cheltenham – commented that more succession planning is essential.
6. Meeting Houses:
6.1:
Most meetings acknowledge that a considerable proportion of their resources are devoted to the running and upkeep of the Meeting House, however nearly all meetings greatly value their properties. Those meetings without the responsibility of a meeting house can focus more on people and needs and many commented on the relief of being burden-free (Alnwick, Banchory,Beeston, Bewdley, Forest of Dean, Hebden Bridge, Ledbury, Marple, Sidmouth, Stone). However, most recognise that a meeting house gives the meeting a spiritual home and encourages membership. The buildings provide an excellent means of outreach and a space for children’s meetings. For most, the income currently balances expenditure and meeting houses tend to be well-used community resources. Balby, for example, commented that the area of deprivation they are in has extensive need for a venue like theirs. Darlington LM tried to sell their building and encountered resistance from the local community. Several meetings recognise that more can be done to encourage lettings. (for example, Adel LM, Huddersfield, Muswell Hill, Poole and Wimbourne, St Andrews)
6.2:
For many it is important that they are able to manifest Quaker values in the fabric of their buildings, ensuring they are both sustainable and simple. Huddersfield meeting notes that once all the eco improvements are in place they can use the meeting house as an eco flagship to all users. Frenchay Meeting, for example, hopes to become a model for a green building in the heritage environment.
6.3:
Some meetings do not think owning a meeting house is justifiable. In Lewes LM, there is a strong view held by some that they should not spend money on premises. At Uxbridge LM one Friend commented ‘I joined Quakers for spiritual reasons, not to be a manager of Quaker premises.’ Swarthmoor concurs that ‘too great a proportion of our resources, both human and monetary are devoted to this work.’ As one Friend At Wells meeting commented, ‘the more we own, the more an institution we become and the more difficult it is to live adventurously’. Chilterns AM noted that ‘there is more work to do to quantify and evaluate costs and benefits, and share this information more widely, so that Friends can make informed decisions on these matters’. Birkenhead also saw a need for deeper and more informed thinking about whether it is useful to have a meeting house. West Somerset AM has found that their spending on buildings is greater than their income and have already sold two properties.
6.4:
Oxted agrees that there must be a balance in the time and energy that we devote between structures, buildings and our spiritual life, with particular reference to the Quaker values that we nurture, such as simplicity.
Looking creatively at this, Tunbridge Wells recognises that their annual expenditure has begun to exceed income. They are in the process of exploring the possible redevelopment of the site in partnership with a housing association. The initial proposal is to provide several units of accommodation and a new Meeting House which will be’ more economically viable, less demanding of our human resources, and as environmentally friendly as possible.’
7. Reserves:
7.1:
There appears to be some confusion among meetings about exactly what size of reserves to hold. Most meetings review this regularly and understand that reserves need to be kept but should not be too large; many send the excess the BYM. This consultation has prompted several meetings to review their reserves (Bideford) and for example, Caerleon after the survey, agreed on a set percentage to go to BYM and their AM. Hope Valley and Sidmouth also discovered that they have surplus funds and are considering passing this on to BYM
7.2:
Some have said they need two months reserves for running costs, although reserves for their buildings need to be bigger. Some are aware that the Charity commission recommends holding 3 months reserves. Others hold six month reserves (Banchory, Chilterns, Disley, Frome, Gloucester, Hall Green, Hereford, Lichfield, Nailsworth, Nottingham, Wotton), some nine- 12 months (Cheltenham, Heswall, Newton Stewart, Adel) some more like 2/3 years (Almeley, Godalming, Kettering). Some reserves are held by the AM and others by the LM. Aylsham LM considers the money on interest free loan to BYM as reserve.
7.3:
Come-to-good LM has no reserves. Uxbridge LM is living off their reserves. CArtmel Meeting is finding it difficult to hold reserves with dwindling membership.
7.4:
Chesterfield noted that advice from the Trustee’s and Treasurers’ handbook is not sufficiently detailed.
7.5:
A member of Westminster Meeting emailed specifically to raise a concern about the waste of resources spent on professional advice on investments – see note
7.6:
Ashford LM saw this question with a hidden agenda and wondered if Friends House were in effect asking for transfer of some reserves from local meetings.
8. IT
8.1:
Most meetings are using email to some extent. They recognise the efficiency of IT especially those rural meetings such as Alnwick and Darlington who found much of their membership cut off during the long winter. However most also appreciate that not everyone is using IT and those without computer access should not be made to feel excluded. Ditchling records that they either post emails or they team non-emailers with a digital friend who delivers news to them. Both methods are not however, foolproof. Other meetings use ‘telephone trees’ (Whitehaven)
8.2:
Cotherstone LM for example, is concerned that IT replaces discussion and discernment. There is the danger of reacting too quickly to email (Bradford on Avon) and Aberystwyth is concerned that IT might impinge on the right ordering of Quaker business. There are concerns also that masses of emails means people skim them and do not really read them so information can get lost. Emails also mean items for agendas can be sent right up to the last minute, which can cause difficulties for clerks. Email can also lead to data-protection issues.
8.3:
Many meetings are developing websites or making use of the Quakers in Britain website. (Preston LM notes that many of their recent attenders have found them through the AM website or www.quaker.org.uk). Meetings are also using facebook and google groups.
9. New ways of working:
9.1:
Alnwick and St Andrews suggest that video-conferencing is something that the Society should be exploring in view of the need to travel less and cut down the use of fossil fuel. It looks forward to a time when there would be video-conferencing facilities available, avoiding travel to Friends House.
9.2:
Several meetings are looking at changing times of business meeting, meeting for worship to make their meetings more accessible. Wandsworth LM is holding threshing meetings as part of preparation for business meetings when there is a big issue to consider. Keswick notes that their AM is exploring merging 3 meetings into 1 administrative unit.
9.3:
Carlton Hill Meeting records that in developing their Meeting’s ‘medium term framework’ they used a range of creative approaches to involve Friends in the discernment process – a ‘talking wall’, market-research-style ‘focus groups’ and a shared art activity. This process itself was felt to be very valuable for the Meeting.
10. Ideas:
10.1 Reserves/ Funding:
Blackheath: ‘While we acknowledge that it is important to keep a reasonable level of reserves for unanticipated future expenditure, we have on occasion lent and given funds from our reserves to Friends House when we have been in a position to do so. Many of us have found the system of organised giving impenetrable. Friends have found it difficult to access information about legacy giving. The term “schedule” is not easily understood, and while Friends seem to be excellent at raising money for other good causes, we seem reluctant to acknowledge that if the Society is to carry out its work in the world it must be direct with Friends and Attenders about the responsibility we share for funding it. We suggest that the system of weekly envelopes practised in many churches has much to recommend it.’
10.2 Giving:
Hebden Bridge: They have recently split the role of treasurer from the newly set up roles of their new ‘collectors group’. They explain that their treasurer was doing good book-keeping, ‘… but the big issue was that the good books she kept showed that income was failing to keep up with rent and outgoings!’ They then got together a few very enthusiastic Friends with a zeal for increasing their income, to form a collectors group; they did a very clear, positive and assertive letter out to all Friends, and as a result their income via CAF and standing orders shot up, and they are now on course financially (and so now actively encouraging Friends to start more giving to wider Quaker work). ‘The lesson for us here being: let’s not assume that the treasurer, however good at their job, is the right person to be doing the chasing of people for increased giving. Sometimes (although not in our case..) treasurers can be retiring and shy people, good at books but not at networking; it can help to give the networking / chasing role to people better suited to it.’
10.3 Sharing skills:
- Cockermouth – would like to see more structured approach to intervisitations where Friends were appointed to attend other meetings in AM from time-to-time
- Pickering and Hull – possibility of AMs sharing the appointment and costs of sending representatives to conferences and gatherings. This would mean less people, and lower costs in arranging these events. The Friend appointed would only need to travel within the county to give reports, thus only one person travelling semi-locally – which must cost less than multiple representation.
10.4 Sharing resources to benefit the community:
- Winchmore Hill –would like the building to be owned by a property Trust or charitable company for use by local community and Quaker meeting. This is echoed by the approach Tunbridge Wells is considering (see above).
Johanna Kociejowski
Recording Clerk’s Office
June 2010
