[Fuusm-l] FUUSM Congregational Feedback Meetings

[Shari Miller]

Dear friends, I can not understand why as the core of the church has no say in what we want. While I don’t have any issues with Kat , it saddens me that she feels the need to bully her way into this. How strong do I feel about this? I am currently considering dropping our membership. As most people that know me, I am not one to pussyfoot around with a problem. I face it straight on. And Kat, my question to you is that what you want? Peace to us all, Shari

Sent from my iPhone

On May 15, 2023, at 12:59 PM, nwolske17--- via Fuusm-l <fuusm-l at fuusm.org> wrote:

 Thank you, Darryl.


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone<https://mail.onelink.me/107872968?pid=nativeplacement&c=Global_Acquisition_YMktg_315_Internal_EmailSignature&af_sub1=Acquisition&af_sub2=Global_YMktg&af_sub3=&af_sub4=100000604&af_sub5=EmailSignature__Static_>


On Monday, May 15, 2023, 11:06 AM, Darryl Ting via Fuusm-l <fuusm-l at fuusm.org> wrote:

Dear FUUSM Community,



At the end of the annual congregational meeting in April, (under “Other business for the Good of the Order”), I made a motion that there be “congregational style” meetings for the purpose of congregational feedback on the minister’s performance and specifically excluding the minister.  After discussion, the motion was passed.

To learn more about why I made this motion, what I proposed, and what has happened since … please read on.



Why this motion …

Prior to this, the method of congregational feedback was through congregational surveys.  I pointed out that the survey approach had some significant flaws, notably that the survey questions limited the scope of the feedback, that survey feedback is one way and isolated (no dialogue for clarification and no benefit of hearing other people’s feedback), and that everyone’s feedback counts the same regardless of the amount of interaction they have.  The cumulative impact is that despite the surveys, there is a significant level of frustration within the congregation from people feeling they have not been heard.



What I proposed …

Special congregational meetings to allow the congregation to provide feedback.  That approach would provide better, clearer feedback by eliminating the above-mentioned flaws of surveys.  More importantly, it allows people to express themselves directly … in their own voice, and unfiltered.  And it allows us to form a more informed collective view through the sharing of our individual views.

Why exclude the minister’s attendance?  I wanted to encourage feedback, and it is not uncommon for people to be reluctant to give or receive negative feedback.  It is just an emotionally difficult thing to do.  The absence of the minister would make it easier for people to speak up.



Follow-up …

At the May 8th Board meeting, the Board determined that it could not call a congregational meeting and exclude the minister.  The minister declined to voluntarily exclude herself.  Therefore, the Board could not implement the motion.



Following the Board decision, a steering group (Karen Binkley, Nancy Luthy, and myself) was formed to develop a plan to implement the motion.  Our target for communicating the details of that plan is the end of May.


Thanks for reading to the end,

Darryl Ting

_______________________________________________
Fuusm-l mailing list
Fuusm-l at fuusm.org<mailto:Fuusm-l at fuusm.org>
http://fuusm.org/mailman/listinfo/fuusm-l_fuusm.org
_______________________________________________
Fuusm-l mailing list
Fuusm-l at fuusm.org
http://fuusm.org/mailman/listinfo/fuusm-l_fuusm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fuusm.org/pipermail/fuusm-l_fuusm.org/attachments/20230515/d2108919/attachment.htm>