This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Executive Summary Second report May 2010
Our first report was issued in February and we asked for your review and written comments. We appreciate your input and have considered all the feed back we have been given. We appreciate the time devoted to the Deanery meetings and to the exchange of ideas and concerns. Our second report is attached. The attached document is in 3 parts. The first section addresses the written comments we received on our first report. A copy of every written comment was sent to every member of the Task Force and our response was discussed in our April 17 th meeting. The second section is a view of what this diocese could look like if it embraced the Bishop with Cure model for its structure. The third section is a view of what this diocese could look like if it embraced the Solo Bishop model for its structure. Both the second and third sections end with a page of budget considerations. Let me say up front we are not the budget committee [nor do we want to be]. The numbers are fairly generic and are included only as a guide to the nature of our structure. We are not setting salaries or programs. We have been asked, “can we afford it?” The numbers provided show that, yes we can, but there are fundamental differences in what resources will be available for ministry. Asking congregations to volunteer their anticipated income for 2010 derived the top figure of $425,000 for assessment income. In a few cases where that information was not provided, we took the latest figures we had available. There were a couple of clergy that insisted these numbers remain confidential and that no one will see the list. The Task Force will respect confidentiality of these specific income figures. We again ask each Rural Dean to call a meeting of his deanery to discuss this document and to encourage written comments back to the task force by June 10 th. We intend to have members of the task force present at each of the deanery meetings to help answer any questions. A final report with specific canonical/constitutional changes will be published in mid July. Those documents will be built from the first report, your input, this second work of the task force, and your input to it. May God continue to Bless the Diocese, Bishop, leaders, congregations, and clergy. May we all eagerly answer the call to do the work we have been given to do… to Love and Serve Christ as faithful witnesses. For the task force, jim snell+
Response to the Written comments from the first report
We had roughly 20 responses to the first report from the Task force. Some were received via E-mail, some individually by US mail and some in packets as a result of a deanery meeting. All of the written comments [and questions] were disseminated to the entire Task Force to review. That review generated some email traffic and a face to face discussion took place at the Task Force meeting on April 17 th. Many of the comments showed appreciation for the work of the Task Force. Some made expressed preference for a specific structure [mostly Solo Bishop, then Bishop with Cure]. A couple had issue with a perceived change in the authority of the Bishop. What follows is a general response to those comments and questions. Some topics and questions were mentioned more than once. They have been combined for response. What staff work can be contracted out or performed by volunteers? Another person wrote in the suggestion that insurance, health insurance, payroll, pension could be contracted out. The first report showed other dioceses use volunteers for much of the ongoing staff work. We prefer the Solo Bishop with secretary and use “cardinal clergy” as Assisting Bishops. When we work on the plan for this Diocese we will include the secretary position for Solo Bishop. Creating additional Bishops within a diocese would require petition by the diocese and action by the College of Bishops of ACNA. The Task Force believes the province is not in a position to approve 2 or 3 additional bishops at this time. We did like your suggestion and have developed a plan to use 3 “clusters” for administration, utilizing rectors as the person for administration within that cluster [basically 2 deaneries per cluster]. These would not be bishops, but would assist the bishop in administrative tasks. Do we need to be in the diocese of San Joaquin?, can we join with another ACNA diocese? Good question, however the Task Force was given the charge to bring back to the convention a restructure of this diocese. To dissolve and join another organization would not comply with our charge. What is the charge [or mandate] of the Task Force? The first resolve in the resolution passed by 2009 Convention reads:” That this Convention establishes a task force to draft and present to the next Annual Diocesan Convention a proposal to restructure this diocese to most effectively carry out the mission and ministry of the Anglican Church in North America;”. The charge or mandate is to draft & present a proposal to restructure this diocese. We believe we have been following that charge and will continue to fulfill that mission in the proposal (s) we submit for consideration at the Diocesan convention 2010.
Is the motivation simply about money? No. The Task Force is motivated by the charge given it by the resolution passed at last convention. That resolution cites the change in Provincial structure [Constitution and Canons] and the encouragement of Bishop Schofield to “prayer and conversation regarding a collective vision for the future of the Diocese.” Money is a factor, of course. But not the only factor. The current structure of the diocese is a result of decades of working under the constitution and canons of TEC. We are not under that system any longer but are under the constitution & canons of ACNA.. The motivation is to do the best we can for this diocese under the new reality of being part of ACNA. Have you [or you should] consult with Episcopal leadership within ACNA? We did consult with bishops in ACNA as well as TEC to get background for the first report. We talked to other diocesan leaders as well as members of the ACNA staff. One respondent provided a list of names of ACNA bishops and many of the bishops we contacted are on that list. The use of “TEC model” is misleading and prejudicial. We are sorry if the term “TEC model” is assumed as prejudicial. There is no attempt on the part of the Task Force to be misleading. What we were describing is the reality of experience in this diocese [and other dioceses] in the last couple of decades or so while those dioceses were in TEC. Other denominations may use similar structures, however most all of us in this diocese have experienced this type of structure while being a member of TEC. Some suggestions were made to call it “traditional”, or “contemporary”, or even ”universal or orthodox” model. It seemed that it would be difficult to have one thing be both traditional and contemporary or that it be universal but not. Possibly it could have been named “TWWH” that which we had. But even that would not be accurate. In moving forward we understand the tenderness there seems to be about the term TEC and we will hold its use to a minimum. The Catholic faith demands central authority. This, or something like it, was mentioned a couple of times. There is a sentence in one of the sections that say something like: “how to transition to a less centralized model of ministry.” These words clearly reflect the ACNA canon [Title I, Canon 6.1] stating the congregation as the fundamental agency for mission. We are speaking here of mission, not authority. Thank you for raising a concern about Authority. It showed us where we were not as clear as we had hoped. We in no way wish to decentralize the authority of the Bishop. No, we are not a bunch of Congregationalists. Yes, we understand scripture and tradition back to the apostles suggests a church gathered around bishops. We are in no way suggesting a reduction in the authority of the Bishop of the diocese. We are looking at ways to free up the bishop to spend the maximum time exercising the duties of his office, not managing administrative details. We are focused on having administrative tasks performed at the level closest to the need, not all ministry decisions. We are sorry for this confusion and take our share of the responsibility for it. You will notice it is addressed in further documents.
We do not want a bishop with his car as an office and a cell phone as his secretary. Neither do we, nor will that be recommended from the Task Force. Strengthen the deanery structure to be more ministries oriented and have a more missionary or travelling bishop. One of the proposals you will see has an administrative cluster system for the diocese. We believe this is similar to what you are asking in regards to authority [the admin canon?? Reports directly to the bishop] and direct care of local congregations. We took your comments regarding the use of in place clergy with administrative skills to oversee many of the tasks done in the central office. Split the diocese, make two or more independent dioceses. While that is a possibility, we felt that was outside the charge we received from the convention. And it would take an act of convention to request the split then an act of the College of Bishops to consent, then an act of convention to make the split. It may be a good idea and a necessity for the future. We need to have fellowship with the OCA. We need to avoid things that keep us from dialogue with other ancient Christian bodies. We are not sure how our structure for administration would prevent dialogue. Preference noted to call Solo bishop “Consultant Bishop” and to streamline administration, condensing roles and functions. We are not married to the term solo bishop. It just conveys a structure for the office of the bishop. Consultant is fine as long as there is no confusion with the business world where a consultant has no line authority.
Diocese of San Joaquin: Bishop with Cure Model
Some assumptions – Bishop with Cure Model will necessitate that: 1. the Bishop and diocese rely on scheduled volunteerism. 2. the Bishop be the Rector or Assistant Rector of a large parish (if the Rector, it assumes he will be in his parish 75% of the time). If our new Bishop were to be chosen from among the already existing Rectors in the Diocese, he would stay within his current parish and perform “Cathedral Duties” in Fresno as necessary. 3. the Bishop delegate some of the duties/responsibilities normally handled by the Diocese to others. 4. the Bishop share decision making with others, i.e. Standing Committee, Diocesan Council, Rural Deans, and Board of Examining Chaplains. 5. the Bishop rely heavily on electronic communication for diocesan and personal communication – electronic meetings would have to become the norm for most committees. 6. the Bishop have a minimal “Office” support staff (part-time secretary/bookkeeper, rely on volunteers). 7. the Bishop’s compensation is shared by his parish and the diocese. 8. the Rural Deans have primary responsibility for ministering to local clergy. Duties handled solely by the Bishop Confirmation: Deanery-wide confirmations led by the Bishop or another designated Bishop. Ordination: Performed by the Bishop or another designated Bishop. Installation of new clergy: Performed by the Bishop or another designated Bishop. Licensing of clergy: Performed by the Bishop. Preside at convention: The Bishop would be the chief celebrant at annual conventions which would be less business oriented and more a gathering of the church for worship and celebration of Christ’s work in the diocese.
Duties delegated by the Bishop (yet remains in the loop) Communication: A volunteer manages the Dionet or other platform for communication and would be responsible for on-going communication; Bishop would email a biweekly letter. Insurance: This would be handled by the local congregational or deanery level. Establish standard operating procedures: The Standing Committee or Diocesan Council would develop these and submit them to the annual convention for approval when necessary. Management of resources: Under the direction of the Diocesan Council, the Treasurer and Finance Committee would handle this. Diocesan Finances: Under the direction of the Diocesan Council, the Treasurer and Finance Committee would handle this. Administration of Missions: Under the direction of the Diocesan Council, the Treasurer and Finance Committee would handle this. Planting of Missions: Rural Deans and congregations would be primarily responsible for this and be allowed to develop unique mission strategies for their Mission Fields. Standing Committee: The Standing Committee shall be free to exercise their canonical duties and responsibilities and shall closely work with the Bishop in all other areas. Duties shared by the Bishop New clergy selection, placement and Deployment: The Board of Examining Chaplains interviews all prospective new clergy for academic and theological readiness; parishes work with the Rural Dean in the placement process and missions work directly with the Bishop. Deployment is coordinated by the Bishop and the Rural Dean. Diocesan event planning: The Bishop works with Rural Deans in planning diocesanwide events Visitation of congregations: The Rural Dean is scheduled to visit each congregation annually or bi-annually; Bishop schedules deanery-wide gatherings of Vestries and Wardens’ Councils Governance of Missions: The Bishop works with the Archdeacon and Rural Deans in this area.
Remarriage: The Bishop works with the Marriage Commission which reviews requests for permission to marry from couples where a party is divorced and makes a recommendation to the Bishop, who will have the final say. Discipline of clergy: The Bishop works with the Rural Deans in this area Ordination process: The Bishop works with the Commission on Ministry, Standing Committee and Board of Examining Chaplains [current process] in the ordination process.
Some Budget Considerations for Bishop with Cure
Income Assessments Personnel Expenditures The Episcopate To include small stipend, travel, some office and ministry expenses Secretary Mostly compensated by the Bishop’s congregation but additional work will be required. Other Expenditures Congregational Development General Ministries Youth Ministries Administrative Expenses ACNA Tithe Missionary Support 160,000 35,550 30,000 8,100 42,500 46,350 80,000
A Proposed Structure For The Diocese Of San Joaquin Using the “Solo Bishop” Model
Overview The “Solo Bishop” model is not dramatically different than what is currently used by many dioceses of The Episcopal Church; in fact, some Episcopal Dioceses utilize this very model (for example Fon-du-Lac). What distinguishes this model is that while it maintains the authority of the Bishop, it sees the function of the diocese as supporting the mission of local congregations. Therefore, the diocesan staff is streamlined and small, lay and clergy volunteers are highly utilized, and great emphasis is put upon using diocesan resources for the work of mission at the local level. Using the information gathered and reported in the first Task force report as well as from comments and feedback returned from deanery gatherings, we have created the following vision as to how the “Solo Bishop” structural scheme could be implemented in the Diocese of San Joaquin. There will be some areas where the tasks or ministry seem detailed and others that are just summarized. It is not to say we believe one to be more important than another or are trying to depreciate any particular activity. We are trying to give a generalized view of diocesan structure with appropriately helpful detail for this diocese using a “Solo Bishop” model. Through clergy round-table discussions, as well as through deanery gatherings, there was consistent feedback expressing the desire that the diocese be focused upon, and thus structured to facilitate, local mission and ministry. This desire was communicated in terms of revival, awakening, evangelism, winning souls, etc. Along with this desire came an equally prevalent desire that the Bishop continue to be a pastor and a teacher. Selection and residence of the Bishop Since the diocesan budget would fund the entire compensation package for the Bishop (unlike the “Bishop with Cure” model), candidates to fill that position could come from anywhere. There would not be a limitation as to geography for the candidate pool. Under this model, the vision for the Bishop’s work is that it will primarily be as a pastor and teacher. Thus, his work is not focused on an office. While it would be assumed that the Bishop would reside in Fresno and continue to have offices at St. James’ Cathedral, other options could be considered. His office could be attached to a church, or could be at a separate location. His residence could conceivably be anywhere in the diocese. While these are possibilities, it is again assumed that the Bishop will reside in Fresno and continue to maintain offices at St. James’ Cathedral.
Centralized Authority of the Bishop – Decentralized Task Responsibility The catholic understanding of the central authority of the church rests with her Bishop. This structural scheme does not seek to undermine that authority, but continues and even strengthens the Bishop by freeing him from as many operational tasks as possible. He is the ecclesiastical head of the diocese, a leader, the defender of the faith. He is a primary locus of ministry, which is shared by his clergy in the various congregations. This proposed structure is not unlike the ordering of many program sized congregations. The rector casts vision and empowers and equips the people for active in ministry. It hinges, then, upon active lay and clergy volunteer labor. At the heart of this scheme are several critical expectations. Clergy will give a “tithe” of their time toward work with the diocese Diocesan Council will be an active administrative body and liaison for volunteers The Diocese will be formed into regions where routine operational tasks are delegated and accomplished
Overall Structure for the Diocese of San Joaquin
Office of the Bishop
Information & Administrative Tasks Bodies of advice Northern Region Regional Canon Central Region Regional Canon Southern Region Regional Canon
Standing Committee Canonical Issues Council of Advice
Elected diocesan bodies Diocesan Council Missions Board
Rural Deans Council of Advice
Commission on Ministry Board of Examining Chaplains
Subcommittee liaison groups Event Planning Committee Communication Committee Administrative Committee
Detail for the Office of the Bishop and Elected Bodies
The Office of the Bishop The Bishop Discipline of Clergy Remarriage Committee Licensing Confirmation Oversight of Admin Canons Pastoral Work Teacher The DC will consist of three (3) liaison committees. These committees will consist of members of DC and volunteers, both lay and clergy, from the Diocese who are gifted in the area of responsibility. The Business Officer would be a part time employee responsible for handling details regarding the facilities of the Bishop’s offices such as property insurance and upkeep. The Business Officer would function to follow up on communication from the Bishop to clergy and congregations and ensure the completion of tasks assigned by the Bishop. The Bishop’s Secretary would be a part or full-time secretary responsible for assisting the Bishop with phone calls, scheduling, and general office duties. Vocations and Deployment Officer would be a volunteer position to assist candidates in completing the ordination process and to assist the Bishop and parishes in filling clergy vacancies. Communication San Joaquin Star DioNet Website Media Event Planning Clergy Retreats Diocesan Gatherings Lay Conferences Diocesan Youth Gatherings Diocesan Council (DC) The DC would continue to be an elected body of counsel to the Bishop and to carry out the mandates of Diocesan Convention. Mission Board
Consists of one clergy and one lay representative elected from each of the clusters for a total of six elected Mission Board members. Members would serve staggered three year terms, with two people, each from a different cluster, elected each year at Diocesan Convention. The Bishop would be a member ex officio of the Mission Board. The Diocesan Council would appoint one of their seated members to serve as the eighth person of the Mission Board.
The Mission Board would be responsible for funds allocated to them by Diocesan Convention and would make recommendations to the Administrative Committee for future budgets.
The Mission Board would meet with clusters to consider proposals for joint (cluster wide) mission work.
Administrative Committee Maintaining and ensuring insurances (property, health, workers comp, etc) for the congregations. Audits Legacies, endowments, and investments Clergy Salary Recommendations Diocesan Finances Assessment Tracking
Detail for Regions and Regional Canons
The Office of the Bishop
Yosemite Deanery Delta Deanery Regional Canon Fresno Deanery Sequoia Deanery Regional Canon
Kern Deanery Sierra Deanery Regional Canon
The Regional Canon becomes a point of contact between the Bishop and the congregations of the region. This person’s tithe of time to the diocese would be given to the following types of tasks: Respond to immediate and emergent pastoral concerns with clergy or congregations until the Bishop can be present. Resource for congregations for business issues such as insurances, employment issues, payroll, etc. Ensuring that congregations are handling basic business responsibilities (eg. Payroll taxes). Verifying the flow of information from the Bishop to clergy and congregations.
Some Budget Considerations for Solo Bishop Model
Income Assessments Personnel Expenditures
(estimated total compensation, benefits, and costs)
The Episcopate Business Officer Secretary
$150,000 $ 64,000 $ 72,000
Other Expenditures Mission and Program ACNA Tithe Remaining Expenses
(including, but not limited to, items such like these)
$ 70,000 $ 42,500 $ 26,500
Office Supplies Insurance (Property, Liability, WC) Maintenance Telephone Utilities Property Tax Total Expenses $425,000
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.