Consistent priorities

I have been waiting for inspiration - sometimes it's a long wait.


Having been at a Unitarian district meeting on Wednesday and heard people expressing dismay at the significant focus and financial investment that the Executive Committee is giving to establishing new Unitarian congregations I was nudged into looking again at the strategic priorities presentation given at last year's (2011) annual meetings.  Nowhere in this document, which was the sum total of the General Assembly's strategic priorities, was there any mention of starting new congregations.


Let's look first at this presentation - it starts with


Economics and Ideals

• The Annual Meetings in 2009 proposed developments which proved unaffordable

• The EC referred the difficulty back to the Annual Meetings in 2010 through the

‘Difficult Choices’ presentation

• UK Unitarians and Free Christians were able to prioritise our needs for the future

These proposed developments in 2009 were (from two separate motions) to have two workers focusing on information and social justice. Certainly if they were part-time workers it would have cost about £50,000 or perhaps a little less.

We were also told in the 2011 presentation that the General Assembly would 

... ensure that all Unitarian congregations can have access to professional Ministerial or recognised lay leadership and support.

Now we are being told that we will be having a 2020 Congregational DevelopmentProgramme.  This has come out of the blue and has no business plan to support its prioritisation. This is what this programme will do.

The 2020 Congregational Development Programme was given the go-ahead along with the establishment of a 2020 Board. It includes a range of possible models with lots of room for creativity locally; new planting, restart, side-by-side (parallel congregation in the same location to existing one), satellites and spin-offs and social responsibility starts. 

The report on finances was considered which looked at the likely costs and possible funding opportunities to start and grow the programme. The financial modelling indicated that to establish a total of seventeen new congregations the net cost would be approximately £1.3million. There were several options outlined for raising this considerable sum. The programme would work alongside current initiatives such as the Future Ministry pilot in Scotland. 

It was also recognised that in the eleven year time period it is likely that some current congregations may close and that the support to the General Assembly from the Bowland Trust will then be at an end. This was therefore a "window of opportunity" to promote growth to arrest the serious numerical decline of the Unitarian Movement.

We are also told that from a £45,000 legacy, matched with Bowland Trust monies bringing the amount to £90,000, the Executive Committee agreed to allocate  £50,000 to the Congregational Development Programme (as start-up grant).  It just so happens that this amount matches what it would have cost to implement the motion that was passed in 2009. This latter was actually agreed by us, the former has not been.


What are we to make of this?  First we are told there is no money to support the implementation of motions which were adopted democratically; we are then told that following consultation these are the GA's priorities; we are told that existing congregations will be prioritised so that they will have access to professional Ministerial or recognised lay leadership and support; and then not twelve month's later we have something not identified in the priorities being allocated significant amounts of money - seemingly given much more significance over those priorities which were presented to us in April 2011.


I am not sure what to think but fundamentally this feels all wrong.

The General Assembly

Not sure where this post goes but it is something that I have been musing and I think it fits best under governance.  Recently postings on the UK Unitarians Facebook group have provoked my thoughts. There have been some describing the General Assembly (GA) as the national centre and about the GA trustees (EC) wanting to influence congregations.

The GA is the national Unitarian organisation  for congregations, fellowships, societies and ministers and perhaps those who choose to be Associate Members.  However there is a difference between being the national organisation and being the centre. There have also been comments about how there are (may be?) many congregations that do not relate to/are unaffected by what the GA does.  If this is the case then can the GA actually be described as a centre, at least for these congregations?


Congregations are made up of individual people and they do not belong to the GA so perhaps there is also a problem with connections between the GA and individual Unitarians.


So is the role of the GA to be the national centre? The GA's constitution states the purpose of the GA in its Object


To promote a free and inquiring religion through the worship of God and the celebration of life; the service of humanity and respect for all creation; and the upholding of the liberal Christian tradition. 


To this end, the Assembly may: 


1. Encourage and unite in fellowship bodies which uphold the religious liberty of their members, unconstrained by the imposition of creeds; 


2. Affirm the liberal religious heritage and learn from the spiritual, cultural and intellectual insights of all humanity; 


3. Act where necessary as the successor to the British and Foreign Unitarian Association (including the formation and assistance of Congregations; the publication and circulation of biblical, theological, scientific and literary knowledge related to Unitarian Christianity; ....) and National Conference of Unitarian, Liberal Christian, Free Christian, Presbyterian and other Non-Subscribing or Kindred Congregations (To consult, and when considered advisable to take action, on matters affecting the well-being and interests of the Congregations and Societies on the Roll of the Conference, as by directing attention, suggesting plans, organising expressions of opinion, raising funds to carry out the foregoing objects) ... 


4. Do all other such lawful things as are incidental to the attainment of the above Object. 


I have added in the bits in brackets to say what these roles are.


(Incidentally the EC's November meeting notes say, 'Constitutional Review Group. A report was received from the group. No constitutional changes were recommended.'  Which seems a real shame because I don't think that the Object is at all clear; I don't think it covers everything that the GA does or that it aspires to do; and it does not identify clearly who the charity's beneficiaries are.)


It seems to me that reading this the GA's main roles are to speak to the outside world and to act as a service organisation for local congregations.  These roles may be seen as central roles but they are not the same as a national body which controls its local, affiliated bodies like some national charities. This is a different model and therefore different approaches and attitudes are needed. Another concern, as I have written before, is that the new priorities are very inward looking. For the first time in my memory (in Unitarian terms this is relatively short) there is no priority around social action.


The second point is about whether the GA should be influencing congregations and fellowships.  As a service organisation it should be providing advice and guidance.  It should be organising events to identify and promote good practice.  They also have a significant input into the selection and training of ministers which might be seen to be a significant influence. So the GA can and does influence. 


What further ability to influence would they seek? And who wants to do this?  The item prompting this posting came from an EC member - so is it the EC which seeks to have more influence of local congregations and fellowships or just one EC member?  As an active member of a local congregation there are plenty of people trying to influence things locally, which is all well and good because they are within our community.  I guess we would say that we do not want the GA influencing what we do rather we would like them to support us in making our choices and taking actions.


I think that there may be some significant mismatches - between the GA's Object and what they do; and between what they think their role is and what we locally think their role is. My view is that it is better to reduce such mismatches so that there is greater clarity and everyone has a similar understanding about what the GA does.  

Glass half-full or glass half-empty

At the beginning of the Facebook discussion as described two posts ago the EC member wrote - in corrected form

Essentially, we've tried to focus our very limited numbers of people and funds on the few top priorities ...

If I read the accounts correctly the General Assembly's income for the year 2009/10 was over £650,00. There are some 11 staff - not all full-time.  When I did a count a year or two ago of the number of volunteers in the commissions and panels I counted over 100.  These are people with expertise in spiritual matters as well as business matters such as finance, fundraising, PR, marketing, strategic development, governance, report writing, communications, web-design, etc.  There are other skills there too such as artistic, educational, social policy and working with young people. This is only those people directly volunteering for the General Assembly and does not include those involved with national societies let alone the districts or local congregations and fellowships.

In my world we are resource rich. What a wealth of resources - human and otherwise.  What we also have is an enormous amount of good will from most Unitarians in the UK and elsewhere in the world. 

But if we keep getting told that we are poor and have limited resources we will begin to believe it. Perhaps if you think you are resource poor then there is no expectation that much can be achieved.  I would dearly love someone on the EC to invite us to celebrate how rich we are as a faith community and then to expect great things. 

Public benefit

All charities need to pass the public benefit test. Here's what the Charity Commission says about the needs to report on public benefit


For smaller charities, below the audit threshold**, trustees are required to include a brief summary in their Trustees’ Annual Report of the main activities undertaken in order to carry out the charity’s aims for the public benefit. Trustees can, of course, provide fuller public benefit statements if they wish.


For larger charities, above the audit threshold**, trustees are required to provide a fuller explanation in their Trustees’ Annual Report of the significant activities undertaken in order to carry out the charity’s aims for the public benefit, as well as their aims and strategies. They are required to explain the charity’s achievements, measured by reference to the charity’s aims and to the objectives set by the trustees. It is up to the charity’s trustees to decide how much detail they want to provide to clearly illustrate what their charity has done in the reporting year to meet the requirement; the Commission will not be prescriptive about the number of words or pages needed. But a charity that said nothing on public benefit in its Trustees’ Annual Report, or produced only the briefest statement with no detail, would be in breach of the public benefit reporting requirement.


**For charities with accounting periods ending on or after 1 April 2009, an audit is required when a charity’s gross income in the year exceeds £500,000, or where income exceeds £250,000 and the aggregate value of its assets exceeds £3.26 million.


It is interesting times for we Unitarians as we now have three basic priorities - (1) local leadership; (2) ministry; and (3) visibility. It all seems a bit too much about us and no-one else.  The fact that our faith and social action work comes under visibility gives very much the wrong impression - we are doing it to make ourselves visible rather than because it is intrinsically right.


I know that the Quakers are significantly bigger than us but I was looking longingly at their annual report for last year - their objectives are around these areas

• Strengthening our spiritual roots 
• Speaking out in the world 
• Peace 
• Sustainability 
• Strengthening local communities 
• Crime, community and justice 
• Using our resources well

It seems so outward looking compared to ours and it has an objective around the use of resources which fills my heart with joy!  I have long argued that it is a spiritual imperative to make the best use of all our resources.

Our new priorities do not serve us well.  I think that if we just focus on these issues then we will find it difficult to answer in more than a few words what benefit we provide to the public.  Let's hope that what we actually do is more impressive than what we say we are going to do.

Trustees and beneficiaries

I am so grateful for the Facebook discussion, part of which is outlined in the post below - I needed some inspiration for posts to this blog. This morning I have been thinking about the relationship between trustees and their beneficiaries.


Trustees are in a position of trust or responsibility for the benefit of another. In the case of the General Assembly's (GA) Executive Committee members (trustees) they have the responsibility to govern the GA for the benefit of its beneficiaries.


The GA's beneficiaries are not too clearly identified in the GA object.  Whilst it mentions congregations and societies the membership of the General Assembly is much wider than that. Members include full (congregations, fellowships, societies, minister, lay leaders, trustees), associate and honorary GA members. 


As a charity the GA must also have a broader benefit which is called 'public benefit'.  I will discuss this in a later post.


I will now digress to discuss an issue that I came across after I had left an organisation whose chair I had been for many years.  I was asked to stop being a trustee as I was doing some paid research for them, as they could find no-one else to do it.  It was a strange position to be in but interesting.  They were deciding to significantly change their object.  I had some conversations about this and asked who they had discussed this with.  They had asked staff and volunteers.  I asked if they thought that these were the people to whom they were accountable. 


I suggested that as a charity their consultation should have been with their beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries. I had no say but felt that I needed to put the case for the beneficiaries as I hoped that it had been their needs which had driven the organisation's development whilst I was on the board. 


We need to ensure that staff and volunteers are well treated and supported in their work but it is not their wishes that should drive developments.  It the needs of the beneficiaries. Sometimes, hopefully often, staff and volunteers should know the needs of their beneficiaries and if they don't they can be tasked to ask. 


To understand the needs of your beneficiaries it is helpful to be on good terms with them, to listen to what they say and not to misrepresent what they have said.  It would be interesting to ask our GA trustees who they believe their beneficiaries are and what values underpin their dealings with these beneficiaries.

How to win friends and influence people

Was in a discussion about the future direction of the Unitarian community.  The thread started by an EC member (the only one who engages on Facebook) begins thus


I'm on the EC. Throw things if you like!


(But I think he was only joking!)


My contribution was summed up by him as 


Louise Rogers questions's Jen's view that youth are essential to our future .... 


In fact I argued that we should not be supporting young people just so that at some point in the future they should take over the running of a congregation.  In the case of the Newcastle-under-Lyme congregation the vast majority of active adults are adult converts. I actually wrote


I think that providing support to youth is vital but not so that they can run anything.


You'd be hard pressed to summarise this as not thinking that youth are essential to our future - but I guess that if you try hard enough you can.  He goes on


... and (Louise Rogers) argues that we should not say that the choices we need to make are difficult.


I actually wrote 



Our choices are no more difficult than those that the majority of organisations have to make. Once we call things difficult choices we imbue them with an emotional content around struggle and anguish. The situation that we have today is what we live with, we are hoping to make things better - this is about a brighter future not a difficult choice.



So I did not say that the choices weren't difficult just that they were similar to what other organisations had to make and that how you define things creates a different emotional picture.  You'd be hard pressed to summarise this as me saying that the choices weren't difficult - but I guess that if you try hard enough you can. 


I also wrote about how to take forward strategic development.  I suggested that we should start with what needs young people had.  This person then responded 


Please, tell us what needs we have, what outcomes are required, and how we should best fit those into the available resources (or expand the resources).


I replied 


I do not sit nationally with a view on what our needs are. The EC has done at least two listening exercises over the past few years. If the EC does not have a view on what the needs are then to put it bluntly either you weren't asking the right questions or you weren't listening. (He did suggest that we throw things - clearly he was joking!) It is not for me to say what outcomes young people want, it's for the young people. Once this information was available then I think that the EC should lead the debate on how to do this but I would be happy to help as I am sure others would.


No response to that one.


I then rewrote the summary of my contributions as 


Louise Rogers thinks that support to youth is vital. She suggests a needs-led strategic approach to our development and also suggests that we entitle our strategic development as (creating) brighter futures. 


I remain disappointed with this member of the EC.

Measuring what we do

I was meeting with colleagues last week discussing how we were going to measure the performance indicators that our paymaster had set us.  We are working with local voluntary organisations mentoring senior staff and boards to help them to become, in the jargon, more sustainable.  The first indicator was 'financial stability'.  We discussed this and some thought that asking people at the beginning to rate their financial stability at the beginning of the work and then to rate it at the end was the way to go.


Rating scales such as these should only be used when you can't think of anything else or if you ask for evidence.  Our response to such questions can depend on all sorts of things - in this instance if an organisation just got turned down for a grant people may be feeling temporarily gloomy or they may have just got a grant and may be feeling unusually optimistic.  It might even be something in their personal life which is affecting their mood. And anyway what is financial stability?


Those organisations which do best financially are those which have financial management in place and an active approach to finding funding.  They also understand about spreading risk.  If you only have one funder there is a higher risk than if you have many because that funder may stop funding you and then all you money is gone rather than just, for example, 10%.  Here are my thoughts of how we might measure financial stability.

• Responsibility taken by trustees for monitoring finances - as a minimum quarterly in times of difficulty monthly or perhaps more frequently
• Active financial management – budgets and cash-flows which are updated as actual figures emerge to replace projections (estimates)
• A good understanding of finances and some financial skills amongst trustees and staff
• A history of overcoming financial difficulties
• Diversity of funding sources
• The length of funding contracts (some times fixed and sometimes on a rolling basis)
• A mix of restricted (for a specific purpose) and unrestricted funding where core costs can be covered by unrestricted funding
• Policies and procedures in place which ensure the integrity of resource management
• A well-considered reserves level - too little and there is a risk to your operations and too much and you are not fulfilling your charitable objects
• A good public profile with plenty of political support - not to be used often but there as a backstop if things look really bleak
• And overall - everyone within the organisation understands that finances are what keeps the show on the road and are 100% committed to helping out if called to do so.  Once when an organisation whose board I chaired was in deep financial crisis as expected grants had not come in or were delayed.  I instructed the chief officer to get all the workers to stop doing what they were doing so that they could concentrate for two weeks on fundraising - either activity stopped for two weeks or forever.

Whilst we may struggle to measure financial stability the health of our faith communities is much more difficult to measure.  I am interested to know what proxy measures we may use to assess how well our faith communities are doing.  Bums on seats and ...