June 2007

CHRIST CHURCH EPISCOPAL

VESTRY MEETING AGENDA

June 20, 2007

 

6:00 The Holy Eucharist

6:30 Dinner – Karen Akens

6:45 Approval of May Minutes

6:50 Financial Reports – Hance West

7:00 Recap Thursday June 14th Meeting – Ted Susac

7:15 Rector’s Time – Paul Johnson

8:00 PLC/Expansion of Sanctuary/Open 24/7 – Karen Akens

9:00 Update on feedback re. Confirmation & CA trip– Tasha Brubaker

9:15 Vestry Stewardship Statement – Karen Akens

9:30Appointment of Council Delegates – Paul Johnson

9:40 Vestry Speaker/Grateful Heart Article

 

Approved July 16, 2007

Christ Church Episcopal

Vestry Meeting Minutes

June 20, 2007

 

Members in Attendance

Karen Akens, Jr. Warden, Pam Board, Mike Bucci, Kathy Guin, Marc Halbritter, John Napier, Shelley Putney, Ted Susac, David Wasik

Staff in Attendance

Tasha Brubaker, Paul Johnson, Keith Tan

Guests in Attendance

Bill Beattie, Mac Thayer, Hance West

Approval of Minutes

Chair established a quorum was present.

A copy of the May 16, 2007 Vestry Meeting Minutes was distributed prior to the meeting for review and comments.  A motion was made to approve the meeting minutes.  The motion was seconded and carried.

Financial Reports

Vestry welcomed Hance West to the meeting; as the Treasurer’s position is currently open, Hance reviewed the financials with the vestry.

In summary, although there is a deficit for May, the year-to-date surplus is almost $115K.  Pledge income is tracking ahead of plan but other items are behind, so CCE is close to on-track, within approximately 1% of budget

Mike noted the $18K deficit in May and asked if we had already budgeted for a larger deficit.  Answer:  expenses were lower than budgeted, more than the income was lower than budgeted.

Mike asked Karen if there were funds withdrawn from the capital account to cover the bond required for the parking lot; Karen replied that this had always been the plan.

In response to a question, Hance noted that the year-to-date surplus is relatively large compared with prior years

David – in follow-up from last month’s meeting – discussed that the team is working on an approach to handling restricted accounts and is on-track to have a proposal for the vestry at the July meeting.  Mike asked if it’s also appropriate to discuss an approach for budgeting – e.g., not provide additional subsidies.  Karen responded that this discussion is slated for August-September, so this is done in advance of the annual budget requests.  Mike asked if there are additional things to be figured out in advance; David replied that the current highest priority is to fill the current openings, especially Treasurer; Mike agreed.

Hance reported the audit is progressing; the audit team was in the church office today.  Hance has been on the phone with staff at various points, as progress checkpoints

Within discussion concerning subsidies, Marc note that, to this point, any subsidies for youth activities have been covered by the revenues collected for these activities.  A suggestion was made to get input from the ministry teams before developing a policy concerning subsidies.  John, noting there ultimately was no subsidy for the recent youth trip to Disneyworld, stated support for developing a policy.

John noted the “non-pledge income” and “loose plate” are running at a deficit to the budget.

A motion was made to approve the financial report.  The motion was seconded and carried.

Annual Council

Paul asked for appointment of four delegates to the annual council.  David Burnham, Mary Ann Cooley, Heather Miller and Andy Reisinger have been contacted and have agreed to participate.  A motion was made to approve this slate of delegates.  The motion was seconded and carried.

24x7

Paul reported that a meeting – which will include the variety of principals – is scheduled for the afternoon of June 21.

PLC Update

The conversation started with the June 14th update / meeting that followed the ice cream social.  Summary notes were distributed prior to the meeting for review.  Ted noted that there were two additional meetings scheduled, to follow each Sunday service the coming weekend; notes from all three meetings will be distributed after the 3rd meeting completes.  Ted’s key observation from the first meeting is that there were various perspectives and some various strongly-felt views.

Observations were solicited from anyone who attended and/or had spoken with people about the meeting.  Pam said she has spoken with someone who has additional ideas to offer re approach / facilitation; Pam will suggest that this individual follow-up with David Soule and share these ideas. 

David asked that participants contrast the Thursday meeting with the prior Saturday meeting [this was a three-hour structured session conducted in the Spring; it included presentations, small-group break-outs, and debrief from the breakouts].   John voiced the dual needs to figure out how we’re going to pay for this and to then get started; in summary, to show folks how we are going to get there.  Paul reported that he has heard some skepticism about how CCE will pay for the PLC and any other construction projects.  Other concerns that Paul has heard are:  lack of attendance at the 6/14 meeting [there were approximately 21 attendees]; need to enhance the worship space; need for a full kitchen in the PLC.  Paul stated it’s important for us to pay attention to the concerns and ideas that are being voiced.

A discussion ensued regarding what are realistic expectations about attendance at this kind of meeting.  Paul noted that when CCE was planning this current worship space, there typically weren’t many people attending meetings until there was something tangible to show, e.g., the meeting at the Columbian Center for the architect to show the drawings.  Keith stated that although we shouldn’t necessarily view the small numbers as a major concern and that we should continue to be attentive to the breadth and depth of interest.  Mike stated the view that a lack of attendance does not equate with a lack of support; some segment of parishioners will be supportive, will want to see the work get done, and yet will not necessarily attend a meeting to hear about it.  Mike stated his support to continue to invite people to participate, to invite their concerns and ideas, and to be attentive to what we’re hearing.

Paul asked for vestry agreement to open a conversation, receiving that agreement, he said he wanted to share a few thoughts and ideas.  He first voiced the view that we all need to be thanking the Building Steering Committee for the good work that they’re doing.  Paul said that Bill would soon hand out a document regarding financials; Paul’s view is that CCE can raise the funds needed to build the PLC.  Paul said that he had an interesting conversation with a member of the vestry a little while back.  The vestry member asked about Paul’s “enthusiasm for this project.”  Paul realized that his prior ambivalence came from, “I think I was being small and not dreaming big enough – also, not willing to trust enough – when I realized there was this blockage for me, it got taken away.”  Paul stated the view that it is imperative that CCE build this space (PLC); we don’t understand all the details about how we are going to make use of it, but we will discover some ways to make use of it that we haven’t imagined yet.  One example includes the possibility for the worship space to truly become a worship space when it no longer needs to be a multifunctional space.  Paul suggested that CCE needs to “do a ‘no regrets’ job” so that when we move in, we won’t be thinking about what we should have done to make it right – as someone had said recently, “don’t buy the Buick and not get cruise control and air conditioning; on the first hot day, you’re really going to regret that you didn’t get that air conditioning.”  Paul suggested that we not leave something out because we don’t want to put the extra money into it – e.g., showers, kitchen.  Paul suggested that it’s imperative that we create the space we can live with for approx ten years.  We do not want to be saying as we move in, “gee, we wish we had (done this or that).”  Bill noted that this perspective is different from what the BSC has been working with for the past year.  The BSC work has been geared from the budget – total $ amount linked to square footage linked to costs per square foot.  Bill stated this was not to voice disagreement with Paul’s statements, but rather to note that the charter for the BSC has been different from what Paul just voiced.

A discussion followed regarding the need for a capital campaign and a capital fund ministry to conduct this campaign.  One key perspective is that we need to learn from the PIF experiences; however, this would be a new campaign, forward-looking and a fresh start. 

Paul stated the conviction that CCE needs to tithe from any capital campaign; and this needs to be stated, up front, in any communications (e.g., brochures).  He stated a view that we don’t yet know what the project(s) will be, yet he has a conviction that CCE has a lot of talented people who can help figure this out.  Discussion of potential projects ranged from the conceptual (e.g., a “big place that needs money and we can help plug the hole to ease human suffering”) to the specific (e.g., a free medical clinic for the West End).   

The extensive ensuing discussion included various perspectives, observations and ideas:

• John voiced a concern about using “borrowed money” to tithe.  Mike linked with this point and suggested perhaps that we consider tithing from pledged / collected funds; we shouldn’t give away money more quickly than we can collect it
• Tasha suggested that as this parish discovers / discerns where this money will go, that conversation may help inform how the buildings will be used.  This includes ministries
• Paul noted the importance of considering how this is all interrelated
• Marc, referring to potential tithes, offered that CCE could consider a youth ministry center and a music academy
• David noted that the notion of tithing on a capital campaign is a new concept and not necessarily a comfortable one.  Yet, it’s also not comfortable to – in some sense – argue against easing human suffering.  Following up on Tasha’s point related to purpose:  tying the construction of the building to the purpose for which we are using the building ties together two messages so they resonate
• Mike observed that if the capital campaign is $4Mn then the tithe would be $400K which is roughly the size of all of CCE’s ministry teams.  This is a significant amount; we need to make decisions about what is important and we need to figure out our priorities; we can’t keep adding to our spending without first figuring out our priorities.
• Paul suggested that we imagine doing a capital funds campaign for a specific ministry.  One option is that CCE could build and run a center to train youth ministers; this is a significant need in the Episcopal Church and – based on initial inquiries – Paul has not identified anyplace that is addressing this need.  What if CCE became the place where youth ministers are trained in the Episcopal Church?  In concept, this could be a two-year program for youth ministers and it could have two components:  ministry to the world and ministry to the Church beyond us.
• Kathy advocated that, as we look at this, it can’t be just about a building; we need a vision and this kind of conversation will help connect within the CCE community.
• Mike asked about the idea of expanding the sanctuary, where does this fit into the discussion?  Paul replied that there’s still much discussion to determine how everything fits together; there are a range of possibilities and clearly one important topic is an enhanced experience in the worship space.  An enhanced worship space was one strongly-expressed need in the prior Thursday’s PLC update.
• Marc noted that the overall plan could include multiple funding sources; as example, there’s a possibility of applying for grants / endowments to support a specific ministry.  Paul agreed, saying that (as example) a youth ministry center could potentially be supported by a variety of funds; there are many questions to explore.
• Mac reported that he had reviewed approximately 40 articles he had identified from the Internet.  Key findings include:
  • common theme is to craft the most compelling vision possible; vision that reflects the specific church community
  • it’s becoming more and more common for campaigns to include outreach
  • it’s recognized that buildings alone do not energize a segment within a parish, however these people can become passionate about outreach – tangible good being done for and with people in need … and photographs are one way to bring this to life
• Mac suggested that CCE could approach a capital campaign in stages – as example, a capital goal, a stretch goal and a faith goal.  He noted that the concept of creating a permanent worship space – that is used for worship only – is important to a core of people and that an additional discussion is something like a 150 seat reverent, sacred chapel.  Mac suggested that any capital ministry consider a simple depiction – something like a funds/pledges “thermometer” that illustrates the funding progress via stages and goals.  
• Ted, linking to Kathy’s recent point about the importance of building the vision, suggested that the meeting participants note how much richer a conversation we can have when we look beyond ourselves; consider the richer conversation within just this vestry meeting tonight
• Tasha recommended that the vestry view the process / conversation as having open-ended elements; this is part of the process of discovery, where have our energies been and what the new challenges are.  In the process of this conversation, one or two ideas will rise to the top and this will become clear; there are some incredible tools within the Church that will help guide this conversation.  Who / what we’re called to serve will emerge; the first part is to cast out all these ideas and then let it simmer; we need not be anxious about this over the short run
• Mike advocated that we focus in on the things that are important and ensure we have continuity on these; we should not variously shift our activities / focus.
• John, noting that Bill, Karen and Andy were asked to look at a starting point for financials, suggested that we give Bill Beattie the opportunity to go through this group’s work-in-progress.  John noted that the vestry needs to be prudent and ensure that we can pay for whatever we ultimately decide to do; we do not want to run the risk of injuring this parish with excessive debt

 

Following a brief break in the meeting, Bill Beattie presented the workgroup’s current view.  The spreadsheet “Cash Flow Considerations for Parish Life Center” has assumptions (easily modified by changing specific parameters) and illustrates three fundraising scenarios:  2x, 2.5x, and 3x CCE’s annual budget.  As introduction, he noted that the spreadsheet printout distributed in the meeting is focused on the PLC and does not reflect the just-completed conversations; several vestry members responded that this appears to be a very useful tool and will be very helpful going forward.  Bill led the vestry to walk-through the model; a key element is to consider cash flow over time versus expenses, and quarter-by-quarter debt servicing.  In summary from discussion which included various specific items in the spreadsheet:

• John stated he concludes the scenarios help show that the funds required are within reach. 
• Karen stated that this spreadsheet tool helps the vestry be aware of the fiscal commitment over the three years; and the vestry will need to look closely at the numbers.
• Multiple speakers stated the view that the core questions involve how much money can be raised and how we can best support any required debt; one speaker voiced the need for the vestry to develop a better intuition about the funding; another speaker voiced the need for the vestry to consider various “confidence levels” about funds (e.g., a “90% confidence level of $xMn in funding”); another speaker noted that any construction would likely be phased and thus specific construction decisions might be made over time, as we better understand what funds are available.

Statements of all vestry members who spoke indicate agreement this spreadsheet is a good starting point that will be very useful as we move forward.

Karen then shared an update from David Guin and the Building Steering Committee (BSC).  The RFP authorized in last month’s meeting was sent to six firms and four responses were received the prior Monday.  The architecture costs for all four responses were relatively close.  The Building Committee has started reading the responses and will meet on June 27th to review.  The initial contract commitment will be $140k-$240k for the architects; this includes doing plans / models.  $240k is to include the sanctuary expansion.  Karen said that David Guin asks, “What is the process to decide about “go” for spending this money?”  Karen said David Guin notes that he is hearing a lot of discussion about the sanctuary and he asks for vestry guidance re what is the Building Steering Committee’s role for the sanctuary – there may be need for another committee to look specifically at the sanctuary.  Karen stated that we need to make a decision about what we’re going to go forward with.  John echoed Karen’s point, saying that we need to get this next phase of the architect’s work so we will have a much better understanding of the costs.

Within the ensuing discussion:

• It was agreed there will be three main report-outs by the July vestry meeting:
  • BSC recommendations for next steps.
  • The vestry will invite the BSC to present their recommendations for this next phase; this presentation with discussion and then decision is part of the vestry’s due diligence.  The presentation can be done via a special vestry meeting if the BSC’s timelines require an answer before the next regularly-scheduled vestry meeting.  If a special meeting is not required, then this will be on the agenda for the July vestry meeting.
  • The vestry is open to considering both “phase 1” (PLC only) and “phase 2” (PLC and an expanded sanctuary) for this next phase of work.  Doing both at this point will permit a comprehensive Plan of Development (POD) to be submitted to Henrico County.  This POD will be based on basic space drawings for an expanded sanctuary; detail design of the interior is not required.
  • Fundraising (capital campaign) – feasibility, including debt service.  Karen and Marc.

Recognizing the importance of the financials / funding, it was moved/seconded/carried to authorize up to $3,000 – if needed – to engage an outside consultant to help look at capital/fundraising possibilities.  The scope is to focus on capital fundraising while also looking broadly at all potential sources

• Vision – evolve the description of what the ministries might look like.  Paul with others TBD.

One participant characterized the vision as the “heartbeat of this entire activity.”

• It was noted that additional subgroups may be added over time.  One example is a group tasked with defining the sanctuary expansion; one key factor is the BSC’s view about whether they should focus on the PLC or whether they have the capability to also explore a sanctuary expansion.  Mac agreed to take this question to the BSC and report back at the July vestry meeting
• Various contributions included:
  • Kathy:  we need to lay out the schedule for a capital campaign which could start as early as the Fall; we need to understand when we need to finalize the uses for the PLC so we can give that information to the architect; with significant decisions to make at upcoming vestry meetings, we need to look carefully at each agenda and ensure we understand the outcomes needed from each meeting.
  • Mac:  the POD response cycle can vary.  The fastest approval could come within 90 days, but it could take 120 days and we need to consider the possibility Henrico County might take six months to respond
  • Bill:  it’s important to finalize the specifics for the PLC; this includes to what extent meetings could be accommodated – or not – in the parlor, the house, and the garage.  It’s also important to realize that some things that sound simple, aren’t – as example, it isn’t simple to take out the wall between the sanctuary and the existing milling area (there are various implications)
  • Keith:  we need to ensure we don’t lose sight of the congregation; there’s much communication to be done.  With this night’s discussion, this group may be moving far ahead of where the congregation is right now; we need to ensure we have an effective dialogue.
  • Ted:  repeated his request that the BSC provide a high-level summary of what’s currently known about key decisions/milestones.  This is so the vestry can better understand “drop dead decision dates” for the overall project (while recognizing that specifics will evolve over time, as we get better information)
  • John:  we as a vestry need to confirm our agreement that we will do a capital campaign.  We need to start communicating the vision; we need to have the vision be very visible and discussed within the congregation.

 

Confirmation

Tasha reported on her recent trip to California, to meet with the sponsors of the new confirmation program, “Confirm not conform.”  Since CCE was a pilot site, we have free lifetime membership for this program.  With 51 confirmation participants, we were able to give the program sponsors good feedback about how to scale for a large number of participants.  Tasha recommended that CCE consider how this activity can be integrated into the youth programs; this does require intensive involvement from parents and mentors yet it can be very valuable for youth as agents of change and agents of vision-casting in the community.  Kathy has heard very positive feedback on the program; from youth, from parents, and from other adults.   

Stewardship Statement

Karen called the vestry’s attention to the proposed statement distributed prior to the meeting for review.  The stewardship team has asked for a vestry statement that can be published in a future Grateful Heart.  Kathy described a few small grammatical changes; it was agreed she will give these to Karen.  A motion was made to approve the statement.  The motion was seconded and carried.

“Godspeed” for Tasha

Paul noted that this was Tasha’s last vestry meeting at CCE; he expressed his appreciation for her service and ministry. 

The vestry directed that these minutes include a special statement of appreciation for Tasha’s varied contributions during her time at CCE, the vestry’s prayers and sincere best wishes for Tasha and Blaine as they begin this next phase of their lives together, and an open invitation to return to CCE whenever their schedules permit

Tasha led the closing prayer

 

There being no further business, the Vestry meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Ted Susac (substituting for Marry Ann Cooley, Registrar)