Oddly enough, it appears that even our existing music program isn't staffed to the level that the UU Church itself recommends. So how come we're looking at cutting it? Read the relevant book for yourself...
Music in Our Congregations: A Handbook for Staffing a Music Program in UU Congregations (last update in Feb. 2008)
Posts
5 comments:
This handbook is published by the Unitarian Musician's Network. In other words, it's not a UUA guide; it's UUA musicians drafting this. Musicians (or plumbers, or doctors, or lawyers, or any profession) are naturally going to draft a "guide" that reflects maximum staffing, pay guidelines, etc... . It's irrelevant to compare our music structure to an ideal, as we don't have the budget for an ideal. Matt Schreck
The Unitarian Musician's Network is listed as an affiliate of the UUA so it's not irrelevant.
Moreover, we're not talking about preserving the "ideal" here, we're talking about preserving something far less than the ideal. And that most assuredly means something.
To assist, I have calculated the proposed music budget as being 8% of the operating budget. This handbook says the music budget should be between 7% and 10%. So the proposed budget is right on there. But if you look at the suggested salaries in the handbook for the music dir., choir dir., and organist combined, for a mid to large size church, paying minimum, that total is more than double what the proposed budget allows, which doesn't include anything else.
It's interesting to note that the document that has been posted does not, in fact, show that our music program isn't staffed at the level recommended by the UUA. On page 4, it notes that the Music Director should direct at least one music ensemble. That seems to mean that the music director could direct more than one. Granted, it may mean more compensation, but not more staffing. It also notes on page 5 that the choir or other ensemble director (children's choir?) may be the Music Director. It says nothing about whether a choir should have soloists or section leaders. Looking further on page 6 it says that the budget in a healthy church should be between 7 and 10 percent. We can debate whether we are a healthy church when most congregations our size have larger budgets that we do. However, from my look at the budget published on this site, the music budget is OVER 10 percent. The cuts that are being proposed still have the music budget above 7 percent. So, let's not sensationalize what is NOT true.
If everyone in our church gave the minimum pledge of $1200 per adult, we would not be having this discussion. In fact, more than half of our members are below the minimum that it takes to run our church.
I and my family go attend our church for all of us, not just the children. I and my family enjoy the music very much. I and my family enjoy seeing what we offer our older members. I and my family enjoy seeing and participating in what we provide for our community outreach and social justice programs, which are not staffed by anyone except volunteers. We do NOT exist as a church just for our children, but for EACH OTHER, for all of our spiritual needs. And, if some are not being met when other programs are being given more than their share, that is just shameful and wrong.
Aren't we supposed to be looking out for our entire church community and its needs?
Who will pay in twenty years when all the children have left because there is nothing for them?
Post a Comment