Closing the church for a third of the year?

For the past few weeks, I've tried to absorb the shock of the news that our church leaders have decided to hold no services between Memorial Day and mid-September -- nearly four solid months -- in order to save money.

I can't even begin to fathom the logic.

We are in the midst of a growing economic catastrophe, where more and more of the people in our congregation and community are struggling to stay employed and pay the bills. Many are in real pain, and they are scared. In times this tough, people need to turn to each other and to their church for solace and help. It is the worst of times to slam shut the doors.

I know from the Feb. 17 letter from the Policy Board that the church offices will remain open during the week and that ministers will still be around for pastoral care, memorial services and weddings.

But there is something uniquely sad -- and terribly wrong -- with opting to go without any Sunday services from May 17 until Sept. 13. Those services are the very essence of our church, even if some of the summertime gatherings are thinly attended.

The Policy Board knows it, too, or the letter would not say that summertime closings are merely "a temporary measure."

I can tell from the letter that many are questioning why we are paying for a second full-time minister when money is so short. I share that concern.

The Policy Board has a tough job and I don't envy anyone on it. But it has done a poor job of sharing the financial numbers that undergird this crisis. It's time for the church to be transparent, to put its finances online in every detail, to let us all see where the money comes from and where it all goes.  I can find out easily where the Town of West Hartford raises its money and where it spends it. How come the church is more secretive than the government? That makes no sense to me or to many others.

Stop telling us how we're going to cut programs and services. Instead, start asking us to look at the numbers with you, to make decisions collectively, to come to some accord on how our church should be operated. 

I have little doubt that the membership as a whole would choose to allocate funds differently, because most of us realize that keeping services going 52 weeks a year is fundamental. Having a second minister is not.

Youth Choir survives budget crisis

The Youth Choir director's position won't be cut after all. I don't know yet about the Childrens' Choir or the Bell Choir jobs.
But I assume that Cheryl's departure has made it easier to find some money for other music program needs, though at a very high price to our church.
If anyone has solid information, I'd sure love to get it posted here so that we can all rely less on rumors.

Cheryl Wadsworth has resigned

Dear colleagues and choir members,
I am saddened to report that I resigned on Friday as Music Director. I gave 90 days notice and Jan, Ivan and Donna rejected that offer and asked me to leave immediately. I wish all of you the very best---I have had wonderful times and made excellent music with all of you over the last 8 years. I will be praying for you all that the church may heal from the recent divisiveness. [...]
Here is the text of my letter:

May 9, 2008

Dear Jan,

It is with deep regret that I tender my resignation from the post of Music Director. The recent difficulties with the church’s budget have made it clear to me that it is time to move on.

I have been truly blessed to have worked with you over the last several years. I know the difficulties of the last few months have tried our relationship, and I wish you only the best in the future.

I will remain for the 90 days notice period and assist in planning the music calendar for next year to effect a smooth transition to whomever may follow me. I expect my last day of work for the church will be August 7th and I will play the previous Sunday.

I already have July 20 and 27 covered for my vacation and expect to take two other Sundays in late June or early July---covering them with church members where possible.

Wishing you and the whole church the very best,

Sincerely,

Cheryl R Wadsworth

Use your names, please!

Lee Townsend sent this along today:

Is it possible for authors to identify themselves? I know some want to remain anonymous but I would like to be able to talk with the authors in person to continue the discussion and, perhaps, to help work on some solutions. I think the blog entries have more credence when they have an identified author. It also brings people together as some of us that don't usually say much become real people with real feelings and ideas to the other members . We start to feel more of a sense of belonging when people respond in person to what we say. I know I have been experiencing that since my first blog entry. To me church is all about personal connections. That is what is currently missing and I think it needs to be restored ASAP.

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.

Church's new structure faulty?

Not so long ago, we blindly approved a change in the church governance that basically put the power to make decisions in fewer hands. For example, we agreed that no longer would the congregation vote on the annual budget, a decision that may come back to haunt us in the coming weeks.
What's interesting about the change is that it may actually have created the crisis we are in today.
Where we used to have a number of committees that handle different aspects of the church, not always coherently, we now rely on our ministers, our staff and the Policy Board to a much, much greater degree.
And look what's happened.
One overlooked problem is that in wiping out so many committees, we also eliminated all sorts of opportunities for members to be involved in their church. That disconnectedness has, I'm sure, helped spur some to leave, reduce pledges or shrink away from active participation in our communal life.
This is, yet again, an indication that it's not finances at the root of the crisis. It's something deeper than that.
In our quest for a better way to run the church, we seem to have put ourselves in a hole.
Maybe one solution is to restore the old governing structure, at least in part, so that more of us are intimately involved in the decisions that ultimately define our church.

The whispers are growing louder

I can't help thinking that the key to this whole financial mess is the decline in the number of people who are pledging annually. The drop in the number is alarming because of more than just the bottom line. It's not just less money for church coffers. It's less interest in the church. It's less commitment. It's less involvement. And what that means for the rest of us is pretty obvious: it's less of a church.
I've been pondering that point, because this crisis is about more than just how to find enough money to pay a few badly needed part-time employees. It's about who we are and what we want to be.
And what's become ever more clear to me is that part of what's happening is an unease about our minister. Some people wonder about the pay Jan receives - well over $100,000 a year - and aren't sure whether she earns it. They wonder if the push for a second minister is to fill a vital need, or how we can afford someone new at a salary of $80,000 or more.
Personally, I have to make clear that I joined this church in part because I was impressed with Jan and Jean. I still am, most of the time, though I'm not ready to dismiss the concerns that I know are swirling about.
But I would like to know - from Jan and from Jean - why, and whether, we need another full-time minister. I respect the opinions I've heard on this issue, which is driving the budget gap, but I want to hear from the two women who know most about what they do and what's necessary.
The only way that Jan is going to quiet the whispers is to address what's being said.
I also want a clearer explanation of just how the proposal on the table, with its dramatic cuts, is going to improve the situation. I can see the need to face fiscal reality, but I can also see a reason to face head-on the reason we are in this mess.
And it's not, despite the lectures we heard for months urging us to dig deeper into our empty pockets, because too many members are stingy. It's more than that.
Instead of whispers and rumors driving that discussion behind closed doors, let's talk openly about what people are thinking and feeling.

Policy Board meets Monday, April 21

For all of us who care about the choices that church leaders are making -- or contemplating -- it would be a good idea to show up at the Policy Board meeting at the church at 7 p.m., Monday, April 21. At the very least, it's a good place to get some more education about the fiscal situation driving the current crisis. And perhaps there will be a chance to influence the decisions made as well.

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

Lend a hand with May music program!

Dear Friends:
We wish you well and hope that you are taking in the signs of Spring stirring; the peep frogs emerging from the marshes, the red maple buds swelling in the sunlight, the deep green of the turning waters in the ponds... the signs are all about.

As some of you know, our choir is planning a special musical event on for the weekend of Saturday, May 3rd & Sunday, May 4th when they will perform Missa Gia written by Paul Winters. The Saturday evening program will be open to the general public and will begin at 7 PM.

The Green Sanctuary has been asked to help purchase, prepare and serve a simple meal to the ~ 50 musicians and vocalists who will put on this program. Our Green Sanctuary Steering Committee has endorsed this activity and we are reaching out to you as faithful supporters to help with this effort. We were thinking that a simple vegetarian fare using locally grown and produced ingredients to the extent possible would be appropriate. We will be finalizing the menu in the next 2 weeks and welcome your ideas and offerings for home made items like breads, desserts and possibly main courses if you have some ideas. We could consider a simple fare of soup and sandwiches and other dishes as well. We will serve around 6:15 PM and clean up afterwards.

Please let me know if you would care to help out with this event by:
1) donating some baked good, menu item (once finalized) or your own special dish;
2) helping with the set up and serving or the clean-up afterwards; or
3) making a financial donation to help defray some of the costs.
Any contribution of labor or food or funds would be a gift.

Thanks for your consideration, I look forward to hearing from you.
Peace, Paul Popinchalk

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.

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.

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.

Music director for Hartford Unitarians weighs in

Dear Friends at UCWH,

We at USH on Bloomfield Avenue are so saddened to read about your difficulties on Fern Street. They sound very familiar, as we've been in and out of similar financial difficulties over the years.

What is really distressing is the proposal to cut the music program in such profound ways.

It is quite true that all church programs have importance, and all are struggling to make do with less. However, if you look at churches of all sizes, some have one minister and some two; some live higher on the hog than others....but virtually all churches of every size have music programs that serve as the heartbeat of worship. Including children in a serious way in this music ministry provides far more than musical interludes in the services. It teaches our children deep lessons about making an offering of their gifts of music, honoring and respecting their talents, efforts and growing abilities, guided by all the adults involved - the congregation as supportive listeners, and their musical directors as shapers of their skills and attitudes, in music, in church, and in life.

Cheryl, Louise and others made important points in the blog. I hope the good people of UCWH will take these seriously as you grapple with difficult decisions. As a long-time music teacher and church music director (21 years at the Meeting House) I know how much effort it takes to build a program of quality -- and how quickly it can be dismantled for short-term fiscal crises. I hope a way can be found to get through these tough times without sacrificing such a central part of the life and work of your church.

With warm friendship and all my best wishes,

Mattie Banzhaf

Music Director, Unitarian Society of Hartford

"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

"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"