Commissions

I was  at the church this morning for Saturday Bible Study. There was not yet any sign of an Annual Report or brochure about Vestry candidates. As I was leaving, however, I noticed a listing of current Vestry members and the commissions to which they are assigned. I was surprised that the number of commissions is reduced from what it once was, and two Vestry members are assigned to a number of commissions. The current commissions are as follows (number of Vestry members assigned are shown in parentheses):

• Children & Youth (2)
• Fellowship (2)
• Outreach (1)
• Stewardship (2)
• Welcoming (1)
• Worship (1)

By contrast, here is the commission list from the 2003 Annual Report:

• Children and Youth Ministries (1)
• Communications (1)
• Fellowship (1)
• Outreach (1)
• Pastoral (1)
• Spiritual Growth (1)
• Stewardship (1)
• Worship (1)

Some Observations

 Currently, 9 Vestry members are assigned to commissions; in 2003, only 8 were. Both then and now, of course, the property has been the primary responsibility of the junior warden. Other roles that need to be filled are those of senior warden, treasurer, and secretary. The treasurer, secretary, and junior warden may be, but need not be among the 12 lay Vestry members, which I assume accounts for the 8 versus 9 commission members in 2003 versus 2012.

What I find especially interesting is the disappearance of the Pastoral and Spiritual Growth commissions. I assume that clergy have taken over these responsibilities and operate largely without Vestry oversight. One conspicuous result of this is that Adult Forum seldom hosts outside speakers, and the topics covered are more circumscribed than formerly.

The disappearance of the Communications commission is unsurprising. It was actually short-lived. The need for it is no less pressing than in 2003, but the commission was problematic, since it attempted to oversee and influence paid staff members. (Maybe there is an insight to be had about the Pastoral and Spiritual Growth commissions here as well.)

It is, no doubt, a good idea to have two Vestry people assigned to Stewardship. The job of the Stewardship commission is important, difficult, and—dare I say it—unpopular.

On the other hand, I am perplexed by the assignment of two Vestry members to the Fellowship commission and one to the Welcoming commission. Do we really need three people devoted to hospitality? Of course, people on Fellowship are subject to burnout, as parishioners seem to think that their job is to run events personally, not simply organize them.

It isn’t clear just how many non-Vestry people are involved with commissions. At one time, at least a handful of people were on each commissions, and the commissions met on the same night once a month. That doesn’t seem to be the case any more. That’s a pity, since the commissions provide a means to involve more people in running the church and to lighten the load of Vestry members.

One commission whose demise is to be lamented is the Property commission. In recent years, the junior warden seems to have acted largely alone, but it would be helpful if a small representative group of parishioners provided  regular advice to the junior warden. I have written about what I think is needed here—my suggestions go somewhat beyond a Property commission as it has been constituted in the past—and I commend to you what I wrote on the subject about two years ago. (See “Managing Change in a House of Worship.”)

Vestry Candidates

Vestry candidates? What Vestry candidates? This week’s e-mail newsletter from St. Paul’s includes the following:

2013 Vestry Candidate Forum and Budget Presentation
Please join us this Sunday, February 3 at 9:40 a.m. to meet the Vestry candidates for 2013, and to hear a presentation on the 2013 budget. There will also be an opportunity to meet the candidates after the 10:45 Service.

Not so many years ago, advertising for Vestry candidates began at least by December. Candidate names were announced weeks before the Annual Meeting, and parishioners were provided with a brochure containing names, photos, and biographies to study. At times, we have held a candidate forum at which candidates spoke in support of their candidacy and answered questions from parishioners. This year’s “Vestry Candidate Forum and Budget Presentation” is clearly going to be rather perfunctory. A truly adequate discussion of the budget alone would likely take up considerably more than the allotted hour. Note that we are told only that we will have an opportunity “to meet the Vestry candidates for 2013,” not hear them or quiz them.

Why has the schedule slipped so much? The Annual meeting is on February 10, and parishioners have no idea who the candidates are. Very likely, there are only four candidates for four positions, so I suppose it really doesn’t matter, but it certainly doesn’t appear that our church leaders are taking the process of electing what amounts to St. Paul’s’ board of directors very seriously.

As I am writing this, it is Thursday. The announced event is on Sunday. Is there a reason the names of the candidates were not announced in today’s newsletter? Do we actually have four candidates yet? Will we by Sunday?

Church Lights, Again

Last week, I complained that some of the lights were out in one of the lanterns over the altar, the apparent result of a wiring problem. (See “Safety Last.”) I happened to see Vladimir before church this morning, so I asked him if the lantern had been fixed. His answer was no, the rector and the junior warden—he may have mentioned others as well—said there was no money for a repair. Moreover, the offending lantern was now completely non-functional.

When the choir went into the church to practice before the 10:30 service, Doug Starr told the choir that the lights had been turned down to reduce the heat buildup in the room. (Even so, it was hot.) Indeed, the lighting intensity had been reduced throughout the church. The two altar lanterns were off, presumably because one of them likely presented a fire hazard. Moreover, three spotlights were not functioning. One wonders if we will continue to turn off fixtures and not replace burned out lamps until the church is completely dark or the building burns down, whichever comes first.

The lanterns over the altar are of the same design as those in the chancel. They are, I believe, the lanterns installed when the church was first built. As I noted in “Safety Last,” a short occurred not so long ago in one of the chancel lanterns, which had to be rewired. The conical cap on these particular lanterns holds in heat and tends to melt the insulation of the wiring, creating a short. I am glad to see that my advice of last week was implemented—the lantern has been turned off. (The two altar lanterns are on the same circuit, so both are either energized or not.) There is nothing to stop someone from turning them on again, however.

In the short term, even if St. Paul’s has to borrow the money, we should hire an electrician to investigate what is wrong with the lantern. I suspect that heat has again melted insulation and caused a short. The problem could be elsewhere in the lighting control circuitry, however, so we do not actually know what the dangers are or whether keeping the two lanterns off provides safety against fire.

In the longer term, both for safety and aesthetic reasons, all six “witch’s hat” lanterns should be taken down. The two in the sanctuary should not be replaced, as they are so much visual clutter. (Lighting in the sanctuary needs to be completely reconsidered, as it has not been since the exposed organ pipes were added to the church.) The remaining four lanterns should be replaced with lanterns duplicating the other lanterns in the church. These will, no doubt, need to be custom made, but the safety and aesthetic benefits will justify the expense.

Why are such improvements not in the capital campaign? More significantly, do we trust the people currently responsible for church maintenance to spend money collected by the capital campaign wisely?

As long as I’m writing about lighting, let me offer some additional concerns. A number of the spotlights mounted on or near the roof trusses are badly aimed. This results, for example, in some choir members having a hard time reading their music for lack of light. The problem is that the fixtures are hard to aim, may not hold their position after being aimed, and present serious difficulties when lamps have to be changed. I have no idea as to the best way to change lamps. Perhaps we need catwalks like those installed in theaters. The solution to aiming spotlights, however, is to get motorized fixtures such as those used for rock shows that can be remotely aimed. Why has no one considered this? Why aren’t such fixtures part of the capital campaign?