Parish of the Resurrection
Meeting Room 4 at Resurrection
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 6:33 p.m. by Al Mercatante.
Reflection: JoAnn read a reflection that Maritza had provided. The reflection began with reading Matthew 28: 16-20, the Great Commission. She then asked how often in spiritual life have we doubted, and noted that wrestling with doubt is something we all do on our journey of faith. We should not be surprised, because we all are weak and have our limits. JoAnn then said that God sends us forth anyway, and that when we’re too tired to pray, we should pray anyway! She then led the council in a prayer.
Members Present: Mary Beth Coté, Elaine Little for Anita Delaney, Deacon John Falkowski, Sharon Gidumal, JoAnn Hedrick, Rich Mayes, Al Mercatante, Mike Mitchell, Linda Malm for Maritza Poza-Grise, Joe Quinn, Jack Sanders, Dick Schwer, Susan Sheahan.
Ex Officio Members Present: Mike Reis.
Guests: Ed Baum, Nancy Maloney.
Members Absent: Father Bill Graney, Pat Sormani, Kathy Swain.
Minutes Approved: Mary Beth moved to approve January’s corrected version of the minutes, Sharon seconded, and the motion passed.
Old Business:
Update on Use of Parish Membership List for PC Stewards and Privacy Policy: Al announced that the updated list was used to get letters out to parishioners and that the stewards would be receiving lists of parishioners they represent. He added that we need a policy of privacy for parishioner demographic data. A proposed privacy was distributed to everyone for review- Sharon suggested changing the wording from “Pastoral Council activity” to “parish activity”, regarding the acceptable purposes for use of the data. Deacon John and Elaine agreed with this proposed change. JoAnn noted that most of the data being given to the stewards could be found in the Parish Directory. Elaine added that the Parish Directory may contain a phrase prohibiting the use of information for personal or commercial purposes. In this case, JoAnn commented that the privacy policy may be redundant.
Sharon asked if we collected information beyond what’s in the directory. Rich noted that additional information might be collected, but that they are not accessible. Deacon John added that people indicate whether they want to provide certain contact information- what they don’t provide can’t be made public. Al mentioned that if the contact information is in an Excel format, that it’s very easy to transmit data. We need to place acceptable limits on use of data. Deacon John and Sharon agreed, and said we should explicitly state that the data can be used solely for parish activities. Al asked if we should pass a resolution to that effect, and Deacon John stated that this would be appropriate. JoAnn noted that a voice vote would be appropriate, and the motion passed unanimously. The following is the approved text for the privacy policy:
“As a member of the Pastoral Council of Parish of the Resurrection in the Diocese of Wilmington, Delaware you agree to abide by the following stipulation for the use of parishioner demographic data. This applies while you are a current member of Pastoral Council and continues after your term of service as well.
As a member of Pastoral Council you agree to the following stipulation:
Parishioner data is collected, with individual consent, for the strict use by Parish of the Resurrection. Information privacy law or data protection laws prohibit the disclosure or misuse of information about private individuals.
These data are shared with Pastoral Council, on a controlled basis, for the sole purpose of contacting parishioners for activities for Parish of the Resurrection.
Under no circumstances should this individual information be used for other purposes or be disclosed to other organizations or other individuals unless specifically authorized by the consent of the individual.”
Dick asked if this policy should be included within the modified By-Laws; Sharon and Mary Beth both assented.
The objective/goal committees then gave updates. The reports are below, with the discussions in red.
Improve Parish Communications:
Activities/Accomplishments: Since your last Status Report, what have you accomplished on your Objective & Goals work?
• Held meeting, where we welcomed Pat Sormani to team.
• Planned for upcoming Community Weekends, which will be referred to as such, rather than Welcoming Weekends.
• Resolved to ensure upcoming parish mission is promoted within and outside of parish: on monitor and webpage; in our bulletin as well as those of parishes in our deanery; in Dialog
• Discussed advantages and potential drawbacks to having FAQs feature on website; as well as conducting a parish survey.
• Assisted in preparation for mailing of Steward Letters.
What overlaps do you see with the objectives and goals of other Teams? In the course of doing your project work, please note any overlaps you see with other Objective Team goals.
Possible overlap with Social Justice team, in communicating their activities.
Challenges/Discoveries: What did you do about the problems or challenges you encountered: actions taken, results achieved, people informed, etc.?
Discovered that there is not support for adopting Flocknote as a primary means of communication. Will take note of discussion of Flocknote at Pastoral Council meeting, to decipher possible gaps or challenges in current communications apparatus.
Resources and Information Required:
Do you envision a point where PC approval
is needed prior to implementation of goals? What additional resources or information do you require to continue to make progress? If so, from whom would you like assistance and for what actions?
• Need nametags for upcoming Community Weekends.
• Would like input from parish administrative staff to determine extent of inquiries into practices of parish, for possible FAQ feature.
• Will need index cards, possibly with questions, for distribution at Community Weekend of June 8-9, the Feast of Pentecost. Purpose of which is to survey parishioners and guests on parish life and growth.
Consider the impact that implementing your goals or actions are likely to have on parishioners. What will you do to prepare parishioners for the changes you are proposing to implement? Please describe your approach to inform parishioners of the changes you are proposing. What parish committees will be impacted by your proposed changes?
Holding a parish survey could impact any aspect of parish life, if impressions and ideas expressed in survey indicate a need for change in some area.
Joe noted that the weekends would be called “Community Weekends” instead of “Welcoming Weekends.” He added that the next Community Weekend was supposed to fall on Pentecost, and would have to be moved because of events already planned for that Sunday (50th anniversary.) Joe also noted that this weekend would be less than ideal timing for putting out a parish survey. Linda stated that Ruth was developing a logo for the parish mission and 50th anniversary celebration. Joe reported that Father Graney would like to promote the 50th anniversary outside of our parish. Linda suggested working with the 50th anniversary committee to prevent duplication of effort in promoting the events.
Joe reported that he’d need to talk to the parish staff concerning publication of the FAQs. Al and Sharon asked if a tentative list of questions would be shared with people. Deacon John asked if it was appropriate to put the FAQs on the parish website- would publishing a list of things that are different about the parish scare off potential new parishioners?
Mary Beth reported that letters would be going out to 645 family units the following day. She also evened out the groups represented by each pair of stewards. Stewards will now cover the following ranges: A through E; F through L; M through R; and S through Z. Al thanked Mary Beth for all her work.
Attracting New Parishioners:
Our objective is to grow our parish by inviting people to experience worshipping with Resurrection and by offering educational and personal development events and programs to the community-at-large.
• Researching community events and functions to attend and to distribute information about Resurrection.
• Improving the Resurrection Parish website by adding information explaining our parish to newcomers (i.e. Frequently Asked Questions)
• Continue to open Resurrection space to several groups to hold their meetings and recruit new organizations.
• We thank the parishioners who are warm and welcoming. Resurrection Parish has been successful in recruiting new parishioners.
• Advertise in the Bulletin, Mail Chimp, and emails asking for ideas from parishioners.
Nancy reported that the committee consisted of Linda, Rich, Susan, Maritza, and herself, and that they would keep Father Graney informed of their activities. The committee is researching community events to attend, and will solicit parishioners in the bulletin for such events that they might be aware of. Nancy added that the address and phone number of the parish are now at the top of the page. Another activity that the committee is looking to pursue is opening the parish up to host outside groups’ events. The committee will be meeting on the following Wednesday. Elaine asked whether we’ve already started recruiting new organizations to hold events here.
Elaine also added that Debbie noted we need to establish rules for use of our kitchen. It seems that people have taken it upon themselves to hang things on the wall. There should be a standard set of rules for parish-specific groups, and a slightly modified set of rules for outside groups using the facilities. Rules would cover things such as the cleaning of the kitchen after use. Deacon John added that rules are being worked on now for parishioners using the kitchen for parish activities. He noted that rules are needed when the kitchen is used as part of a sacramental celebration, or for other “outside” uses. Elaine commented that Debbie suggested that when a group signs up to use the kitchen, that they sign a “contract” agreeing to terms of usage. The terms of usage would include a checklist of things to do, and would be laminated, legible, and kept in the kitchen. Al asked if there are any insurance or liability issues for outside groups using the kitchen. Elaine asked if we had a parish lawyer. Rich said that he knows someone in the parish who can look at the insurance policy. Al asked if the staff was working on these issues, and the answer was “yes.” Al then asked if the policy could be written up and given to the Pastoral Council for review. Elaine answered “yes”, and said that the policy would also be published in the bulletin.
Improve Pastoral Council:
Dick reported that Al, Kathy, and he had finished reviewing the By-Laws. Kathy will send out a marked-up draft for review and comment. The plan is to discuss the proposed changes and other new changes during the March meeting. After the discussion in March, a revised version would be sent out for discussion in the April meeting, so that there could be a final vote at the May meeting. Linda mentioned that she had some questions and comments regarding the current, existing committees. Deacon John recounted that there was a Parish and Family Life committee that went by the wayside, and that some of the current goals and objectives committees have activities that would have fallen under the former Parish and Family Life committee. Dick noted that the Improve Parish Council committee would like people to solicit questions and suggestions.
Grow Social Concerns:
Sharon reported that there had not been a meeting or update since the last Pastoral Council meeting held on January 27th. “Social Concerns” has been changed to “Social Justice”, and the next major meeting would be in April. Ed Baum asked about Sandy Landoll’s current role, and Rich replied that Sandy had retired.
Al mentioned that the committees’ six-month summaries were requested, and that there would be an insert in one of the upcoming parish bulletins. Elaine informed Al that he would need to coordinate the insert with Debbie.
Discussion Regarding Communication of Use of Flocknote for Parish Communication: Joe related that Father Graney suggested that there’s a strong consensus that there is not an urgent need to use Flocknote. As a result, Joe suggested tabling Flocknote. JoAnn thanked Elaine for her input on the usefulness of Flocknote, and Al thanked Joe for his work in investigating Flocknote and working with Elaine on her implementation of Flocknote. Elaine also thanked Joe for his help with Flocknote and resolving issues when they arose.
Parish Security: Rich reported that he had met with Father Corrigan and the staff members, and that they had worked on a scope for new security measures. Debbie obtained a lot of quotes for security packages, and then Ed and Rich reviewed these. Rich and Ed then wrote up a proposal for security upgrades for the parish- this proposal was handed out to the Pastoral Council members, and is included here:
Rich noted that a 16 camera system would ensure that we have coverage of every egress. DVR would ensure that everything is recorded for later review. Rich noted that Ed has already demonstrated the ability to get the camera view on office computers and on cell phones. Rich said that the front entrance would have a two-way speaker, and that access could be provided via phone button, or possibly a cell phone. Elaine asked if it would be possible to have a buzzer in the kitchen. Rich responded that speakers could be hooked up so that a request to enter the church could be heard from the kitchen.
Rich added that Quality Security is our current security provider. Sharon asked about the monthly monitoring fee, and Rich replied that we already pay this fee to Quality Security. Elaine added that we should show people the security-related buttons on our current system and how they work. Rich agreed that people need to be trained on our system periodically. JoAnn asked if a “panic button” had been considered, and Rich responded that this had not been discussed. Elaine said that with the proposed office locks, people could lock themselves in their office and use landline phones to call 911 in case of an emergency.
Al asked if drills would be planned for the security system. A comment was made that in general, we need to make people aware of the exits in the worship and gathering spaces in the event of a fire.
Rich added that the $2000 for contingency is there to cover any additional materials that would be needed to cover the project, and that it may not be needed. He also noted that the kitchen is currently coming in under budget because the granite countertop and the outside patio came in cheaper than expected.
New Business:
Update on Stewardship Campaign: Mike Reis reported that 100 pledge cards were returned this year, vs. 130 that were returned last year. Of these 100 cards, 10% pledged more money than last year, for a total of $330 more per month. He did not know how this number compared with prior years. The 100 pledge cards represented both electronic and envelope donations. The 100 pledge cards, along with the electronic donors who didn’t turn in a pledge card, account for $373,000 of the offertory (72% of budget.) Mary Beth asked if anyone contacts parishioners beyond the campaign, and Mike R. said this was a huge time commitment. Jack asked if any of the pledged amounts had decreased from the previous year, and Mike R. did not have this information. The question was raised of the 645 family units, and how many people were regular parishioners. Elaine asked if we could get data on the number of families that contribute, and Mike R. responded that this would take a lot of work. Dick asked if there are any concerns about not reaching $520,000 in offertory income. Mike R. commented that the campaign was for 2019, but that the fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30, and that required minimum deductions (RMDs) can come in any time of the year. The second half of the calendar is the first half of the next fiscal year. Jack asked about the percentage of CFP families contributing to parish. Deacon John noted that families pay separately for their kids to participate in the CFP program and in sacramental preparation classes. Mike R. also noted that money is allocated when it comes in.
Regarding the budgeting process, each staff member submits their budgetary needs. There are also diocesan expenses that have to be included in the budget. Mike R. mentioned that committees are no longer active in creating their budgets. There are two more meetings before the budget will be passed. Deacon John said that March is when a tentative draft of the budget is put forth, and May is when the budget is approved for the upcoming year. Al wanted to make sure that Mike R. gets the budget information he needs in a timely fashion. Deacon John noted that committees didn’t always know how much they were being allotted, but that people would put in request for particular needs. Dick noted that the time frame is tight between estimating the offertory income during the stewardship campaign in November and needing a tentative budget by March.
Sharon asked if Pastoral Council would see a proposed budget in April, and Mike R. replied “yes.” Jack asked if the budget accounted for two full-time clergy, and Mike R. said “yes.” Elaine noted that Tina had streamlined things with the budget for her and for Nancy, and that the number of codes had been reduced. Mike R. said that he would like budget information by March 14. At this point, the parish is ~$15,500 behind the current budget. Dick mentioned that 5.5% of the offertory would be designated, as usual, to charitable giving.
Joe noted that Father Graney said we would need to be more aggressive in the last 3 months of the year. Rich asked if he could go ahead and ask Father Graney for the OK on the security system. It was said that Finance Council needs to be OK with it, and Mike R. said he would talk with Father Graney about it.
Finance Committee Response to Audit Recommendations: Mike R. reported that there were a lot of recommendations, and that some would be worked on. He thanked Ed Collins and Leo McDermott for their work on looking at parish processes, as well as Mike Baker for his work with the diocesan audit. One of the recommendations was that only a parish priest be a signatory on parish accounts- this currently is the case for all accounts. Another recommendation was that bank account statements be opened only by the pastor; the statement actually comes in electronically. Regarding ushers, it was requested that two people handle the money at all times. There should be two people when the money from the safe is being counted. It was also recommended that the empty collection bags be under lock and key. This recommendation will not be pursued. Another recommendation was to have three counting teams of ushers- it was noted that there aren’t enough volunteers to put this in place. It was also recommended that the pastor review all credit card expenses, and that Father Graney should initial every bill. JoAnn asked if signing checks to pay bills would count as initialing the bill- someone noted that one check isn’t necessarily written to pay one bill. Another recommendation brought up was to have petty cash to pay bills less than $25 in value. Also, having monthly payment of bills, including reimbursements, was recommended to simplify things. Reducing the number of accounts was also suggested- Mike R. noted that the current number of accounts might be good.
Mike R. informed the council that the parish credit card is the primary source of purchases, and that parish staff members each have a parish card with their name on it. He noted that there had been one minor problem with payroll, but that had been taken care of. Mike R. also noted that scope of projects requiring budgetary approval needs to be well defined, and that things have gone well with the security project. Mike R. also related that according to state law, trustees should be approved at the beginning of January. The diocese requires that trustees should be approved in an open meeting. Al and others thanked Mike R. for all his work! Dick asked if Mike R. could make the report with recommendations and comments available for future review.
Formation of Nominations /Elections Committee: Al announced that elections would be held in May. Dick stated that the nominations/elections committee usually consists of three people. These people would need to determine when nominations and elections are held, get the signup list for volunteers during these events, compile info from nominees (to make a poster board for display), run the election, and count the votes. Dick, Joe, and Mike M. volunteered to be on the committee.
Other New Business: Mary Beth recommended that people be prepared to discuss the purpose of the survey and what they want to see included. This will be on the agenda for the next Pastoral Council meeting. Jack noted that the bishop thanked Resurrection Parish for contributing to the Muslin service event. He added that Father Roger DiBuo, pastor at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Roman Catholic Church, was just appointed as an interfaith liaison. Jack would like to get the remainder of photos taken during the event and post them on the monitor in the gathering space. He would also like to see this parish position itself as an interfaith hub, which may bring more people into the parish.
Ed thanked Mary Beth for the letters that would be going out to parishioners- he added that he’s been in the parish since April of 1972, and that he had only been called once by a steward. Ed also brought up some additional points regarding the security project. He noted that the perimeter lights in the parking lot were something that parish staff would like, to improve security. He added that we currently have six perimeter lights, each of them being 175 Watts. He noted that if we change to LEDs, we could reduce power consumption and can use the currently available power source to power the additional perimeter lights.
The Pastoral Council prayed the “Our Father” together.
Dick moved to adjourn the meeting. Sharon seconded the motion, which then was approved. The meeting was adjourned at ~8:40 p.m.