No second minister for now

Here are some comments from Joyce Falkin:

I would like to offer some observations and suggestions on the current situation.

I do not think a case has been made for a second full time minister at this time. Financing an interim minister at the expense of music programs, religious education and the livelihood of a competent, loyal employee of 30 years does not sit well with me. I think we need to preserve the good things we already have, to the extent that we can within a balanced budget. We need to achieve a sound fiscal position before taking on further obligations. We’ve drawn down the endowment fund too far, with only token replacement. Our church needs repairs we cannot afford to make. Maintenance deferred is more expensive maintenance. We need to live within our means.

So, I suggest: from the shortfall, subtract the expenses of the proposed interim minister, subtract the identified potential administrative savings, then add in a salary for a 20 hour pastoral care position. Whatever number that leaves us with-a much diminished shortfall, I think- divide between religious education and the music program, any changes to be determined by the respective directors. Leave Lambert as is, and hope that he chooses to remain with us. Ideal? No.

I further suggest that this next year be a year of remedial action and vastly improved communication among board, staff and congregants. I believe there is some discontent in the congregation as evidenced by declining pledge units, decreased attendance, and outright leaving of the church. How else can people make a point? Being listened to is not the same as being heard.

Some other suggestions:

1. Define membership and its obligations. Pledging should be a requirement of membership. I was appalled last year when I learned that approximately 1/3 of our “members” had not pledged. This year the number of pledge units has decreased further. That needs to be addressed. As for those who are mia, exit interviews at this point are a bit like locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen. I do think they should be attempted, very carefully. Perhaps after these measures are taken we will learn we are not, after all, a BIG UU church—only a wannabe. That is not the end of the world, in my book.

2. Put as much effort and time in bolstering and nurturing our current membership as is being expended on attracting new members. Do not construe this as being critical of Martha Winslow. She does an excellent job. New members –pledging new members- are a good thing. I am simply saying there needs to be another leg under the membership stool, dedicated to the care and nurturing of present membership. We could hire two interim ministers and not compensate for the loss of Jean Brown. We can’t even afford one. But we can-must-afford a part-time person who is smart, warm, empathetic, hardworking (for little compensation!) and effective to be sure that those who need attention receive it. I don’t think this person has to be and ordained minister. It could perhaps be a social worker, perhaps someone from Hartford Seminary, etc. This person would chair the Care Committee and its’ good works, make pastoral calls and supplement the senior minister’s work in that area.

Re-cultivating a relationship with the church among those who have drifted away is really self-serving. People so served would, I believe, become more supportive of the church, both financially and otherwise. Happy, satisfied members who feel the church is meeting their needs will bring in new people.

This is way too long. Still have more ideas-some from other people- if anyone is interested. None of these problems are without remedy. We can do better.

A Fair Pledge?

David Arnott sent this along to add to the discussion:

The theories about money versus wealth and status versus circumstances or age and connections are all good reasons for increasing or decreasing one’s pledge. After all, who best to judge the benefit or weigh the sacrifice I am making, except me? And, we are learning there are as many reasons as Members why we pass by one house of worship, or synagogue or steeple to come here, to Fern Street on Sunday mornings to be with each other. That too is a decision which no one can quantify, or qualify, except the individual. Once a Member, whether you are the newest amongst us or the eldest amongst us, your rights and privileges as a Member makes you an equal among us all. In this sense, every pew seat and every space within our house of worship and at every meeting you have the right to speak out, regardless of your time with us and especially without regard to what you pledge. So, what “a fair pledge” is ultimately comes down to what the individual gives.

Once a Member, and a part of your church, however, it is reasonable to know what it costs to run and fund our programs; pay our professional Staff and the annual upkeep costs to sustain our house of worship so that it is safe and operational. Not knowing this basic information shortchanges each of us who care and love our church. I commend the Policy Board, Ministers and Staff for making this information transparent. No one knows more than these dedicated Members and Staff how painful it is to spread and stretch a budget. We come 30, 40, 50 times a year [or 3, 4 or 5 times] and many enter our sanctuary with children, with spouses, partners, with extended family and some arrive with friends. The health of our church reflects on each of us. It does not fall in the laps of the paid and volunteer Members. They are custodians for us—but the church is us—not them. It is our house of worship. They have a role in caring for this church which we have entrusted to them; but the burden is ours. The only benefit our church receives is a tax break provided for in the Constitution under the separation of powers clause; and an endowment, left by our forbears, who entrusted it to us to continue to practice our faith and keep our traditions alive in their passing. It also certainly was gifted to keep our house of worship like our homes—a place to feel safe returning to each evening. Many of our benefactors are interred in the Memorial Garden where, when I pass, I can still see their faces and hear their voices because so many of them still live in my mind and heart.

And this is where the “fairness” issue becomes a “reasonable” issue which we must, as a church, face head-on. How many pledging Members [unit/family, etc.] do we have and what is the average/mean pledge? What is our total budget? Division anyone? That number addresses what each Pledging Member should understand is what it costs to run our church during any planning year. While the church can never have a debate with me about what I must give, this church would be irresponsible if it failed to share with me what a responsible Member pledge should be. In times of deficits as we are now in, only I can assess how to change my current pledge. So, while we would all rather not hear the details, the responsible role of the Policy Board is to share how the news is bad—not just that the news is bad.

I think instinctively we all know revenue shortfalls break-up and eliminate parts of the church. Last year it was RevJean’s hours and pay and Summer Services. This year it is Music and art programs and custodian hours. What next year? How ironic, because our Membership is so talented and gifted. The skills base and backgrounds so diverse, you make me want to be here—to grow, to be like you. Indeed, we do not have a paucity of Members with great gifts.

So, what is a fair pledge is driven not by my finances or by my ability or inability to pay a ‘fair pledge.’ No, that number is my right to give what I feel is right together with the right of the church to press for a pledge to keep our programs alive; our house of worship a safe place to come to and a professional Staff to do our administrative work and Ministers to steer us to become our better selves, to look within and without for a spark of the divine we each carry within us. In this sense, we are family—church family. We each only need to be aware we too are accountable and responsible for doing our small part.

Respectfully
David Arnott

Social justice?

At one of the meetings the other day, Sue Wilson had some kind words for this little blog, calling it "wonderful experiment with democracy" and a way to give some people a voice.
Then she told us that she also has a blog, but we can't read it because it's all in her mind. It's a social justice blog. For her, social justice is crucial.
I just want to say, in case anyone cares, that I'm all for more social justice efforts at our church. We really can't do enough to help others, raise awareness of important issues and problems, and try to rally support for a better world. That's a big part of what our church is about -- and should be about.
But social justice also includes doing right by people quite close to us - our staff and our children especially. That's why it's impossible to call for more social justice while simultaneously advocating cuts to our loyal custodian's pay or vastly diminishing programs that kids count on.
Justice begins at home. If we can't provide it within our own walls, we're in no position to do anything much for anyone else.

Checks from Uncle Sam

Here's one simple idea for helping to fill the budget gap: What if we all give 10 percent of the economic stimulus checks we're getting in May from the government to our church? If even 200 people give 10 percent or more of what they get from Uncle Sam, I'm sure the tally would come to more than $20,000. If those who are struggling less could give more, that total could swell rapidly.
If half of our members donated an average of $200 from those checks, we'd get over $60,000 in extra revenue -- and we'd get it right as summer starts, which has to help during a relatively dry season for contributions.
We'll give our share.

PS: Except for very high income taxpayers -- and people with almost no income who fail to file a tax form -- eligible individuals will receive between $300 and $600. Those who are eligible and file a joint return will receive a total of between $600 and $1,200. Those with children will get an additional $300 for each qualifying child. The checks go out in May. (By the way, if you're one of those very high income taxpayers who aren't getting a check, you can afford to chip in more, too!)

Let's try to get some skeptics on the Policy Board

"There are four openings for the Policy Board this year. Maybe some of those posting on this blog will consider calling the Nominating Committee and 'volunteering.' The reward is service in and of itself, I can assure you. Become part of the solution." - Matt Schreck

I hope that some of the members who are skeptical of the proposed budget measures will step forward and take up this challenge. I'm sure that I am not alone in wondering if there are other alternatives that could be pursued instead of making such drastic cuts. Anyone willing to join the Policy Board whom we could trust to explore different avenues, to try to come up with answers that don't require laying off staff and reducing programs? Speak up and come forward, please.

No fingerpointing

From Donna Leibin, a church member for the past decade:

Dear Policy Board,

Thank you all for giving us the opportunity to voice our opinions today. Also, thank you all for the hours and endless energy that you contribute to our church. I was wondering if you might forward to the congregation through mail or email some key clarification points that came out of the meeting today.

1) that we are not eliminating the music program from our church, just cutting back and asking that members step up to the plate for more volunteers to work with our choirs.

2) that we are not eliminating RE, again just cutting back on spending, and in fact asking the director where she feels the cuts should come from within the program.

3) that a second minister is long overdue; let people know how overworked our minister is, and that with over 600 adults it is just an insult to not have this position filled.

4) pledging problems existed in this church for many years. We have talked this issue ad naseum. now it is time to talk of a solution and work with what we have. I for one am tired of hearing about the pledging problem and would like to just hear the solution of what we are going to do with what we have.

Also, I am respectfully asking that a policy board member have a conversation with Dick Krietner concerning his trying to tie the minister into the pledging problem.

This problem existed long before Rev. Nielsen became our minister. There are many, many, reasons behind this issue and to point a finger at the minister is irresponsible, especially when coming from somebody like Mr. Krietner who has been a long time member. I believe he is mis-informing people with pledging and membership statements and trying to tie it to the minister, and there is just no room for that kind of talk in this case. He is trying to create an issue that just doesn't exist and is not relevent.

Love is the spirit of this church and service its law, this our great covenant...to dwell together in peace, to seek the truth in love and to help one another...

It doesn't say anywhere in there, that we should point fingers and place blame, for problems that we have all created and must all solve together in the spirit of our affirmation.

What the numbers show ... and more

Members who are pledging have hiked their median pledge nearly 20 percent over last year, from $1,020 to $1,200 each. That's a whopping increase for one year during hard times.
So how come money's so short?
It appears the simple reason is twofold:
1. In each of the past two years, there were 335 members who pledged. This year, despite a hard sell from church leaders, the number fell to 296; and
2. The average pledge didn't rise nearly as much as the median pledge, which means that a handful of bigger donors stopped giving so much. The average pledge rose from $1,727 to $1,824 during the past year.
Ray, who heads the Policy Board, shed a little light on the numbers. He said that some of the church's largest contributors retired.
Moreover, he said, "We're getting younger as a congregation."
With membership stable -- not growing, but not shrinking -- the fact that we're getting younger overall is generally a good thing. It's hard to argue that we're dying as a church, as some want to say, if we're attracting young families to fill the roles of older people who are moving on.
But it's also true that younger families are less likely to have extra money to toss into the church's kitty. Those most apt to donate significant sums are people who are closer to the end of their working lives, when their own kids are through college. Everybody understands that.
So what do those younger people want from their church?
I think that before we go slicing away important parts of our ministry, particularly the music and religious education programs, we ought to find out what exactly our members want. Perhaps the exercise will help convince people to donate more, but it will surely shed light on what's really needed.
I don't like the dismissive tones of leaders who seem to think that slashing salaries and positions of our employees as a recession looms is just fine. We owe our employees better than that. It sure ain't social justice to lay off good employees in hard times unless there's no other option. It is, in fact, just plain wrong.

Look beyond the current year

This is the complete version of comments prepared for Sunday morning’s church financial forum by Dick and Debby Kreitner. In the interest of time, they said, they omitted some of this at the meeting.
We would like to thank the Policy Board for soliciting our opinions before they decide on the budget submitted to them for approval. It is unfortunate, in this age of rapid communication, that we could not get word out to all our members about this forum. Affected constituencies were able to spread word but many other members did not find out.

First, we need to be clear about the problem. This is not an expense problem. It is a revenue problem. Furthermore, we believe it is not a problem with the average amount contributed per pledge unit -- the congregation has increased the average pledge by 50% since 2004. The Stewardship Committee should be complemented for the excellent job they have done in this regard. However, continuing to push for even higher pledge levels risks alienating people.

The real problem is that we are a declining congregation. You can’t look at membership numbers – membership hasn’t really changed in 10 years. You need to look instead at the involvement and commitment of the members:

1. Attendance – It is obvious to regular attendees like us that we aren’t getting as many Sundays where people are really packed into the pews.

2. Church School – both enrollment and attendance numbers show sharp declines

3. Pledge Units (most important indicator) – The number of pledge units (our primary source of revenue) has decreased 20% in the past 3 years.

So what does this tell us? Our members are less interested in what we are doing as a church.

Implementing the budget submitted to the Policy Board will dismantle many programs which built up this church and will risk further declines in involvement and pledge units. Therefore, we urge the Policy Board, before taking any action, to closely study why we are a declining congregation when other UU congregations and the denomination as a whole are not declining:

1. Is it our programming? Have we become stale, boring, and insufficient to meet the interests of our members?

2. Is it a lack of intentional member involvement? Are we not making people feel wanted? Are we not reaching out to people to invite them to participate in the activities that the staff can’t and shouldn’t handle?

3. Is it inadequate communications? Are our current communication methods not timely, too infrequent, and not sufficiently comprehensive? If one is not in church (as is true for more than one-half of our members on most Sundays), do they miss out on important communications? Are our communication methods geared too much for the convenience of the staff, not the benefit of the members?

4. Is it a question of ministerial effectiveness? If there are problems with our current #1 minister, shouldn’t we deal with this before hiring a #2 minister?

We also urge the Policy Board to look beyond the current year before making its decisions. Any solution needs to work over a longer term. We need to avoid a continued decline, so we are not back here again in a year, talking about the next cutbacks.

Become part of the solution

Matt Schreck, who's on the Stewardship Team (and energetic about it, too!), sent this along to explain more fully his views on some of the comments made today:

I’ve read the most recent blog postings, and must reply to clarify a few things that have been stated. As always, these are my views and my views only. I’d be happy to discuss in person or offline with any one who desires.

First, and as I stated this morning, the Stewardship Team (in conjunction with Pete Begin) began having financial presentation meetings in the fall of 2006. Detailed handouts setting forth the church’s financial position (including historical deficits and pledge data) were provided. An updated presentation was made in the fall of 2007. All four of these meetings were publicized in advance and, unfortunately, not nearly as many people attended as were at today’s meetings. To state that members have not been provided the necessary information, and that today’s Policy Board data boards and presentation are “too little, too late,” is simply untrue. What is clear is that we members are now finally focusing on what has been ignored for years – we are not raising enough money to operate the church.

With respect to pledges, and contrary to what some folks stated at today’s meeting, attendance is not declining, members aren’t leaving in droves as unhappy campers, and our minister is not driving people away. Rather, attendance remains strong (I was a greeter at the second service today and attendance was excellent). We’re not raising enough revenue because: (a) several of our larger pledges have moved away, retired, or have pastoral concerns; (b) we continue to have a plethora of members who contribute at minimal levels vis-à-vis their financial circumstances and apparently have no intention of ever raising their pledges; and (c) we have, as a congregation, and as all too evident by many of the comments at the meetings today, a collective “scarcity” mentality. It’s easier to complain. It’s easier to focus on the symptoms of the problem, spew invective, and ignore the need to work together. Few of the angry comments today focused on constructive “how can we fix this mess.” Rather, many of the comments (particularly at the early session), pointed fingers, accusing the Policy Board of violating a sacred trust that clearly translated into “how dare you cut a program of which I am fond.”

Fellow members, we as a congregation must get together, cut out the sniping, and fix this problem. We simply must.

With respect to the issue of pledging, I’m personally offended at the term “begging” as somehow characterizing stewardship. As a member of the Stewardship Team, I guess I wear rose colored glasses. I assumed that we were the conduit through which members could express their love and support of the church by helping it pay its bills, minister to the flock and the greater community, and help one another though frequently challenging secular and spiritual times. I had no idea we were begging. Begging what? Begging that you put your money behind your desire to have a church responsive to your needs? Begging so that staff can have a livable wage or keep their jobs? Begging so that the less fortunate among us have a safe and welcoming haven to which to come each Sunday (and the other six days) for welcome sanctuary? For what are we begging? My wife, Kristen, and I are indeed blessed, and we are blessed to be able to pledge to this church. For us, our pledge is not a charitable contribution given grudgingly away in the face of begging. Rather, it is, in the spirit of Jan’s sermon today, our little part towards “touching” the greater whole so that we all can enjoy the fruits of our collective church we call home. If anyone believes that today’s frank discussion about the church’s need to increase revenues so we can avoid laying people off and cutting programs is “begging,” then I can only shake my head. If any member believes that being asked to pledge is “begging,” or believes that adopting the rationale that “I don’t need to pledge very much because there are those among us who can give a lot,” is constructive or even healthy, or that “all this focus on money is just a naked attempt to drive away all but the well heeled” is a rationale response, then all the sermons in the world about being generous and taking care of your neighbor (or the person sitting in the next pew) just must not have stuck, so to speak.

And, I must also take issue with some of the characterizations regarding the Policy Board (and, I must admit, given that Kristen was a Policy Board member until very recently, cheap shots at the Policy Board, in the words of Waylon Jennings, are “fightin’ words”). I have served on Finance Boards, Boards of Trustees, Stewardship Committees, and the like. Each time, it is an honor and a privilege to work with, and for, my fellow congregants. Frequently, rather than being a “thankless job,” it is nothing less than a daily mission to try and do what you truly believe is in the best interest of the church. The “thankless” part of the job comes when members, armed with nothing more than a point of view and a forum to articulate anger, criticize and call into question your motives. When Kristen was the president of the board of our last church, she could have funded our shortfall with the number of times she was called a liar to her face. Thankless? No. Personally trying? Yes. As was pointed out at the meetings, there are four openings for the Policy Board this year. Maybe some of those posting on this blog will consider calling the Nominating Committee and “volunteering.” The reward is service in and of itself, I can assure you. Become part of the solution.

In closing, I was handed five pledge sheets this afternoon after the second meeting. Actions supporting words – a fine start. We have 55 days until hard decisions must be made, and I hope that today’s meetings ignite solutions to these issues, rather than merely push people towards digging in, closing their minds, and tacking ever harder away from fixing the problem. Best to all, Matt Schreck

The first meeting today

Truly, I don't know what to make of it.
We got a smattering of information -- and some nice graphs -- that laid out the reality that we're $85,000 in the hole this fiscal year. And Policy Board members made clear that we can't keep borrowing from the endowment to pay for operating costs (we already owe $160,000 to our own endowment). That's absolutely right. We can't cook the books.
But that's not the same thing as endorsing the options the Policy Board has chosen, which target music and religious education disproportionately.
It is also clear from the numbers that the average pledge is rising steadily, even if many members who do pledge aren't increasing their giving. It's also a fact that there are simply fewer people pledging than in the past, which could be a reflection of the sour economy or it could be a way of protesting quietly. There's no way to know.
The Policy Board griped a little that nobody paid attention when it was dealing with the budget last fall, but, of course, why would we? We weren't given enough information to be particularly concerned. I think, too, that even the church leadership thought pledges would close the revenue gap. When they didn't, we heard a lot of begging that I guess didn't get too far. Now we're looking at cuts that hurt.
About a dozen members got to speak, with widely varying views. A couple pointed out that the pledge targets the church seeks are unrealistic for many people and urged the leadership to make clear that any donation helps. Many praised the Policy Board members for their hard, volunteer work (excessively so, I thought, since I see scores of people at the church donating their time for all sorts of things, from teaching Sunday school to making sandwiches for soup kitchens). There are a lot of thankless jobs at a church. Being one of its leaders isn't really one of them, apparently, since they got lots of thanks Sunday. Some went on to praise the proposed cuts while others decried them.
I don't want to characterize specific comments by specific people because I didn't take notes or record them. I hope many of them will offer their comments on this blog so that everyone can weigh them.
I wish I could provide more of the financial details as well. I'll try to pick up the right papers at the next session today -- though I have to go work on the play this afternoon, as one of the many volunteers involved with "Charlotte's Web," so I might not have a chance -- because I'd like to provide some of the details that I know many people would like to see.

Turn out for Sunday's meetings!

After both services Sunday, there will be meetings in the sanctuary at which the Policy Board plans to explain its position on proposed cuts to the music program and more. I trust there will also be a chance for people to speak up on the issue as well.
Child care is supposed to be available at least for the noon session. I'm not sure about the earlier one.
Try to come to at least one of the meetings and make your support for our music programs clear.

What is a "responsible pledge?"

Though I don't particularly want to see the discussion of what to cut become yet another plea for people to donate more money, in the emails and comments I've seen the last few days, there's a strong current of thought within our church that people need to pledge more.
While there are, no doubt, some people who could give more, the approach of trying to guilt-trip people into coughing up more cash is not going to get very far. That's mostly because we, as a church, aren't really into guilt, which is basically a good thing. We can't tell people to believe in whatever they want, as long as they're nice to others, and then add in a proviso that whatever they believe better include writing big checks to a church on Fern Street. It won't work.
So why are we pursuing a clearly flawed fund-raising strategy?
What I hear, more or less, is that church members should pledge at least 3 percent of household gross income. Those who give higher percentages are held up as some sort of hero. And 3 percent is a bargain compared to the mythical, biblical 10 percent, I'm told. Someone wrote today that we might even consider a $1,200 minimum pledge.
Well, I've about had it with this whole notion that there's some magic percentage of income that ought to go the church. And I know I'm not alone, though most people will keep mum on the topic.
For one thing, I'm a progressive. I don't believe for a second that everyone should pay the same percentage, for the same reason that America adopted a graduated income tax almost a century ago. The simple reality is that 3 percent from a relatively low income is a whole lot harder to find than 3 percent of a relatively high income.
Just to make it simple, I'm sure that a family pulling in $60,000 a year in West Hartford is going to have a much harder time donating $1,800 a year to the church than a family making $200,000 will have in donating its $6,000 share.
That's because the lower income family is then left to get by on $58,200 while the other is going to have make do with $194,000. The pain isn't equal, but the advantages offered by giving to the church are.
Even to make the argument that everyone should pay some kind of similar percentage is to buy into a reactionary premise that flies in the face of the generally progressive outlook of the Unitarian Universalist Church.
Moreover, and this is probably even more central to the argument, income is not the same as wealth. There are lots of people in this area, and in our church, whose incomes may not be all that high, but who have large investment portfolios, bulging IRAs, multiple homes, costly cars and such. They have wealth that isn't necessarily reflected in their income.
It means a whole lot less to give 3 percent of income when that donation doesn't encroach on someone's accumulated wealth. And I hear enough about ritzy vacations, beautiful homes near the sea and so on to recognize that there are many people in this church who have been blessed with material abundance. I don't have a problem with it -- having long since come to grips with the reality that world doesn't treat everyone the same -- unless those lucky people try to dictate to others who are barely coping that we should all give equal percentages of income.
What all this focus on giving more money really accomplishes is to tell anyone who doesn't have it to get lost. I listen to the pledge chatter in church and think, wow, there can't be many poor people who could sit here and listen to this and feel like they could belong in our midst.
We talk about diversity, but we don't really mean it. We're happy to have gay people, people with different religious backgrounds and people with different racial backgrounds - as long as they have money. But in our constant focus on pledges and dollars, we are sending an overpowering message out that unless you have the cash, you don't belong in this church.
Forgive me, but that's an awful message to deliver week in and week out.
If we're truly trying to be a welcoming congregation, one that has a genuine diversity that reflects at least our own community, then we better focus our appeal on a broader range than the just well-to-do.
Social justice isn't just something we do "out there." It's what we need to do within our own doors.
So how do we get the money to function? I'm not sure.
But it has something to do with looking up from the account books, throwing away the red pencils and reaching out to the entire community. And it probably also means trying, gently, to get those among us who are most blessed with the conventional sort of riches to donate more heavily than they do. We're never going to get far by focusing on hitting up people who basically have made it clear they're not going to give more.
We're not in this to tote up Excel columns. We're not here to glare at members who don't want to pledge. We're not members of a country club with dues and green fees. We come to this beautiful old church to find something that's valuable for our hearts and our souls, something much more lasting than money.
For me, and I believe many others, that includes the music we hear every week.
I fear that in our quest to balance the ledgers, we're going to undermine the reasons many choose to be part of this church. We need to reach out to each other, and we need to reach out to the community beyond our doors. Let's be as welcoming as we claim to be, and see what happens.
Though I don't really consider it anyone's business, I figure full disclosure may mean something so let me add that, truthfully, I can't even remember what we pledged. Maybe $700? I figured that we'd probably wind up giving more than that, but given economic uncertainties and a strained family budget, that was really about all we felt comfortable promising. It's about 1 percent of our net income. But tell me where another $1,400 for the church would come from out of our coffers, because I sure don't know.
So what is a responsible pledge?
The pledge to try our best to do right by each other. Money is an almost inconsequential part of that.
Doing right doesn't include laying off choir directors, cutting the hours of a loyal custodian and paring religious education.
I understand that the Policy Board is wrestling with tough issues, and I know their hearts ache at the recommendations they have made, but, frankly, it doesn't change that they're wrong about what they want to do.
And it's up to the members of this church to rally now to save what we care most about.

"Please Refocus the Debate"

Please Refocus the Debate: this is not about the "music camp" vs. the "ministries camp", it's about a decline in membership levels and pledges. In the short run, some cherished programs and people must, sadly, be cutback. In the long run, only a growing, vibrant and financially committed membership will allow us to restore the things we must cut now. So the question is, how best can we devote our limited resources toward growing the membership and restoring our programs? How will others in the community learn who we are, what we offer, and why they should join us? My answer: ministers who are visible in the community on behalf of the church, and who attract new members of all stripes, especially young families who have a long term stake in the vitality of the church as a spiritual home to raise their children.

I've been on our church committees in the past, and know first hand our finances, and our ministries. In my view, one minister simply cannot do it all.

There are no easy choices here, all are bad. The best of the bad choices is the one that will best build our membership. To my mind, music is a wonderful aspect of the Sunday service, but not a primary driver behind membership growth. The ministers of any church are the primary factor behind who comes, stays, or goes. Make no mistake, music helps for sure, but we can't have everything we want right now, and something has to give. So I support an additional minister that will help us build the membership, restore funding, and help avoid ever having to face these bad choices again.

One request: our Board Members are volunteers, doing what they think best under trying circumstances they never signed up for. They are communicating with members, listening, and reading this blog because they care about the church, and are forced to make bad choices. Anyone want to trade places? Not me. If you do, please do, and thank you, it's a big commitment of time and resources. If not (like me) then voice your view, be civil, and be flexible enough to support the final decision and leadership of those who are devoting their "free--but valuable and essential--time" on our behalf, weighing the factors, and doing their best with limited resources.

Respectfully, Michael Reilly

New UU music guide lays out salaries, positions for a church our size

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)

We need professionals

Louise Fauteux, the youth choir director, sent this over:

I am mortally offended by the Policy Board’s idea to use volunteers to run the choirs. Saying we will use volunteers is a handy method to try to say we will not lose those programs.

Our church does have some very talented musicians and one or two educationally qualified members to do this. I have often tried to point out that our membership has strong music skills which can be tapped. We save money in the choirs by asking them to accompany on various instruments when they can.

Many church members show they value the music outside of church. They sing in Concora, the Hartford Chorale, and other choirs, as well as various non-classical venues. They attend concerts, send their kids to summer music programs and pay for private music lessons. I see in this context that they are ready and willing to pay for the expertise of those professionals.

To have a volunteer lead music in church is not the same as relying on a trained professional. There are many skills involved in working with children generally. Professional choir directors know how to work with children’s voices and can focus on using music appropriate to their age. Someone who has the appropriate training and experience and is unlikely to volunteer for the extra work. Why not?

A volunteer might not want to come on Easter and Christmas. A volunteer might work for a short window of time when it is convenient to do so. (Too bad for the kids who work best with the security of a continuous leader.) As soon as it’s not too convenient, requires extra time and commitment, and begs for time outside of one hour of week to plan the development of the program over a long term, or becomes stressful in any way, a volunteer CAN and WILL walk away. And why shouldn’t they? THEIR TIME IS VALUABLE.

Another way to illustrate this point: Say we propose to use church volunteers whenever the building needs a little maintenance. After all, we have talented plumbers, architects, carpenters, and who knows what else among our membership. So when the toilet breaks down, one of us will come fix it. And I do think someone would. But maybe not continuously all year long.

It might be flooding over when that volunteer would rather go attend a family wedding or funeral…. Why should they come in to fix it when they are not being paid for their time? Don’t they have bills to pay like anyone else? Isn’t what they do considered valuable?

"Kids belong at home on Sunday mornings"

From choir member Mark Couzens:

"As a church member and bass in the choir, I have to say this is very good news. The kids belong at home on Sunday mornings, watching TV and experimenting with drugs. This will allow them to better adapt to their lives as complete Americans when necessary, as, for ex. when they are given the VOTE. Also: let's not get carried away with the whole music program thang: why else did god invent the CD player? Get real! Live music is very overrated, and so is a live congregation. We're all gonna die someday, isn't that what this is all about?? Why not make the sanctuary a place to celebrate our deaths in a less "viable" fashion. Too much stress is placed on making things sound right. What a waste of time. If the section leaders what to sing, let's make them pay us! Let them put their money where their voices and their egos are. Finally, let's have 3 services each Sunday. 2 isn't bankrupting us fast enough and 1 just gets too many ironic asides. Peace and love, Mark Couzens"

How to decide what to cut

Matt is absolutely on the mark with his plea that we endeavor "to avoid turning this debate into church constituency versus church constituency. " The reality is that all of us almost certainly support nearly everything that could be funded, from children's music to pastoral care.
But, as both Matt and the Policy Board have made clear, there's not enough money to do it all.
The necessity of balancing the books is pretty obvious, so the question becomes, how do we do the least harm possible as we bring spending in line with revenue?
My own view -- which I firmly believe is widely shared -- is that children come first.
Whatever else we do, we should not take steps that make our church less friendly, available and helpful to our young people. From the high school youth group to the children's choir, we need to preserve an atmosphere on Fern Street that embraces the dreams and talents of the people who are going to take over this church, and this world, someday. If cuts must be made, and I'm convinced we have no other options, then let's have them hit hardest on those of us who aren't still looking forward to graduation. Let the young people have it all even if the rest of us must accept less.
At this point, I don't really know all of the cuts that are being eyed. But the two most glaring examples of something that can't be axed without doing harm to our children are the proposals to slice away the directors of the youth and children's choirs. Do that and we've gutted something crucial. It would send a powerful message to our youth that the church doesn't look out for them. And, believe me, they're already watching to see whether we put them first or whether we don't.
I'm not sure what among all of the programs we offer is most deserving. I don't even want to try to guess. All I know for sure is that we can't sacrifice our youngest.
I don't think championing the children's cause is dividing the congregation because it's something we can all agree on. After preserving what we do for the young, let's do what we must, even if it's painful. But spare the kids.

Policy Board actions not taken lightly

This is from Matt Schreck, explaining his views on what's happening:

I have been on the Stewardship Team for two years, and I have read the posts on this blog and have some thoughts, on which I will be happy to elaborate at Sunday’s meetings. I stress that the following is my opinion only, and I do not speak for my fellow Stewardship Team members.
First, I think we, as a Church congregation, need to avoid turning this debate into church constituency versus church constituency. I have the utmost respect for Cheryl, Sally, and all the other valuable members and staff who will be affected by these cuts, if and when they are made. These folks are the backbone of our church, and we have been blessed by their commitment and service.
Whether one agrees with the Policy Board’s decision to take a hard look at where we are spending our resources, and explore reallocating these resources to better meet our ends, it should be clear to all that we presently are living above our means based on our church income. Thus, I strongly believe that the Policy Board is taking the responsible action of inquiring if we are best utilizing our limited funds. I personally believe that the hiring of an interim minister is an important step for our church as we enter into our next phase. I also believe that a vibrant music program and a strong religious education program are also important.
But here’s the rub. Member pledges have actually decreased on the aggregate this year. A majority of our pledging units/families have either decreased their pledges for this year, or kept them static with last year. We still have members who do not pledge at all. If a program such as, for example, youth choir, is important to church members, the sad reality is that they must translate this support into making a meaningful financial commitment to the church. Frankly, and I stress this is my opinion and my opinion only, many of our members do not correlate their love of our church with a meaningful financial commitment based on their own circumstances. In other words, we could avoid these cuts, fund our existing programs, and hire an interim minister, with increased pledges. If our average pledge went up $500 (less than $2 per day), we would not be discussing the church’s “fiscal crisis.” I understand that not everyone can make this type of commitment, and no one should be expected or required to pledge beyond their means. But, I will note that many of our members did not increase their pledge at all this year – not a dollar more, despite the pleas of the Policy Board that absent additional pledges, painful budget cuts were likely.
Finally, church members should be aware that many of our more generous pledges come from staff members. That’s right—our employees (who are also church members) effectively refund a portion of their salaries to the congregation because they love the church and believe in its goals and message. We as a congregation should honor this commitment by our staff and work to increase our pledges to support the work that they do on our behalf.
In closing, these are indeed tough economic times. No one wants to be debating whether an employee must be laid off, or a program cut. I support the Policy Board taking the responsible action of addressing our deficits, examining all programs, and taking the hard but necessary action of budget cuts and realignments in the face of reduced revenues. This work, as they say, “isn’t for the faint of heart.” I’ve attended several of the meetings in which these issues have been discussed. Our Policy Board members and other members involved in the process literally ache when they discuss this. I personally know that none of them take these actions lightly. Fiduciary responsibility means sometimes taking action that, while in the best interest of the church, is personally wrenching nonetheless. I would hope that all who post on this blog, attend Sunday’s meetings, and on into the future take this into account as we face and solve these difficult issues together.

Case needs to be made for second full-time minister

So it's true that we're going from a half-time second minister to a full-time one, a move that will push this year's costs up by $20,000 and will, presumably, shove the following year's bottom line up by $40,000 or more.
By the end of 2009, we'll have paid $60,000, or more, in additional salary to our ministers if we hire a full-timer. That extra money would pay for six years of work by our three part-time children's, youth and bell choir directors.
In any case, it's hard to comprehend why it makes sense to double the pay of a second minister at the same time we're in a big financial hole. There's a disconnect there that requires an awful lot more explanation.
I'd also like to see a much more detailed budget in the days ahead, one that shows where every penny is going. It's hard to judge what makes sense when we only look at categories of spending. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

Some solid information from the Policy Board

Statement for this blog from the Policy Board (PDF format) --

The Policy Board is looking forward to Sunday meetings after both services in order to provide information regarding the church’s financial situation and it’s subsequent need for action.
In preparation for those meetings on Sunday, we are providing you with some base line information and facts now on which you can base your questions and concerns.
We spoke with the congregation in February and sent a letter and postcard noting that our budget shortfall at that time was $145,000. As we noted in our recent letter, the church is facing a shortfall of about $85,000 in our pledges for the fiscal year that began January 1.
The shortfall is particularly large this year, but we have been struggling with deficits for several years, and the fiduciary responsibility of the Policy Board is to seek a budget this year that will put us on a firmer financial foundation.
What the Policy Board has been doing:
Using four guiding principles for considering financial decisions:
● Our 2008 budget must be balanced and not exceed our income.
● The budget must be aligned with the goals of the church as driven by the needs and energies of the entire congregation
● It must allow for the adequate upkeep of our buildings
● It must provide fair compensation for paid staff
In addition, after much research, the PB is committed to replacing Rev. Jean Brown who is retiring. You may know that though Jean is paid for a half time position, this is a recent change and for many years Jean had been at 30+ hours per week, with a full load of pastoral care. You may not know that we are the only large UU congregation in the country (around the 600 member mark) that does not have two full time ordained ministers to serve the many and varied needs of a congregation our size. The UUA has advised us that it would be next to impossible to find a minister who could afford and be willing to relocate to West Hartford for less than a full time position.
We have also been focusing on the following:
● Increasing unmet pastoral care needs due to understaffing
● Increasing unmet support for adult education, member services, social justice and community outreach
● A music program which relies heavily on paid positions (3/4 time Dir; 3 additional paid choir directors with a budget of $9,450; 4 paid soloists with a budget of $15,000 and a budget for instrumentalists throughout the year) with an overall budget of $82,000.00.
● A children’s religious education program serving approximately 165 children with a full time RE director and a 20 hour a week assistant with an overall budget of $97,000.00.
● Fixed costs (bare bones) for keeping the building open, running, and in decent repair of $175,721.00.
● 7.5% cut to non-personnel costs, a reduction to our dues to UUA and CBD and possible ways to reduce custodial and maintenance contracts.
What the Policy Board is NOT doing:
● Disbanding any music programs. We are saying we need to adopt a different music program model used by other UU churches, which relies less on paid positions.
● Tapping the Endowment fund to balance budget. We already take a 5.5% draw from the fund every year. Relying on the Fund to shore up inadequate financial support from current members violates the intent of the Endowment Fund. And we currently owe the endowment $160,000 for past borrowings.
As a point of information, our current fiscal year budget is $771,715, of which 81% is funded from pledges. Also, the additional cost for a full time minister will add approximately $20,000 to our budget this year. A part time associate minister would require us to dedicate all of that minister’s time to pastoral care and would not enable us to fulfill the unmet needs noted above. It would also still leave us with a deficit of $70,000. This amount would still require cuts in areas noted above.
This is not meant to be, nor can it include, all of the information we have been diagnosing and working with for months. We hope to fill in some of the gaps for you on Sunday.
See you then.

Budget information from the Policy Board (PDF format)

Let me just add my thanks to Ray and the Policy Board for giving us something solid to mull over instead of relying merely on secondhand reports. I'm sure I'm not alone in being grateful for the information.