Minneapolis Friend Meeting

Minutes of Monthly Meeting for Business

July 11, 2021

[Names and some information have been edited for web publication]

John K – Presiding Clerk, Tom W – Recording Clerk, Bill H – Zoom Host, plus 59 in attendance

Silent Worship

Agenda Approved

June Minutes Approved

1. Return to in-person meetings – Presiding Clerk  There have been some changes to the proposal since we last discussed it. Proposal was displayed on Zoom and read out loud. Clerk reviewed names of the ad hoc committee and indicated his intention to have Meeting consider and approve each bulleted point of the proposal.

Proposal:

1. • As of July 18 we open the Meeting House for in-person small group and committee meetings
   • Each committee will provide virtual and in-person options, as needed.
   • All meetings must be scheduled via the Meeting Coordinator
   • All participants must follow the required meeting house use protocol
   • We move forward with further implementation of the initial capability to support hybrid meetings
   • We establish a designated fund to allow folks to donate specifically to the technology upgrades
   • We designate an ongoing “Technology Committee” or group of individuals whose charge is to maintain the technology and operate the technology and Zoom meetings during the hybrid meetings
   • Optionally, we could hire someone to operate the technology and host the Zoom meetings every First Day and other special occasions
   • We designate and empower a “committee” to monitor and adjust the building use protocol as more is learned and the environment changes. This group could include representatives from Trustees, Liaison and Review, the Meeting Coordinator, Ministry and Counsel, the Meeting Clerk
   • As soon as the initial hybrid capability is ready, we begin to hold worship at the Meeting House.
   • All attendees are subject to the building use protocol.
   • We ask a heating/cooling system contractor to review our systems to optimize air exchange.
     1. Clerk began consideration of the first bullet point: “As of July 18 we open the Meeting House for in-person small group and committee meetings”  Discussion: Recommendation was made that committee meetings use the hybrid process as much as possible so Zoom can be used along with meeting in person.  It was noted that you will need to have your own laptop with functioning camera and mic to use Zoom when gathering in the meeting house.  Also, it is possible to connect remotely via the phone for a conference call. Friend asked about guidelines for scheduling an activity in the meeting house since the coordinator is available only three days a week.   Just follow what we have always done before.  Contact the coordinator. Review openings on the calendar. Make arrangements for keys, etc.  Clerk noted that it is no longer just the committee clerk who decides how the committee is to meet, but it is up to the committee to decide.  Friends APPROVED opening the Meeting House for in-person small group and committee meetings as of July 18, 2021.  
     2. Clerk asked that we consider the next to last bullet point: “As soon as the initial hybrid capability is ready, we begin to hold worship at the Meeting House”.  He thought this might begin as early as August 15, but that might be too aggressive a timetable.  Discussion: Friend reminded us that it may be more important to focus on improving the air quality in the meeting house rather than focusing on making the hybrid technology work. They thought the proposal seems incomplete.  Clerk said individuals will have the option to not come to the meeting house if they are uncomfortable and that addressing air quality will take will take time – 5 to 6 months – to get a contractor to come in and they may not be able to improve the air quality much. It will take a lot more time if we try to improve the air quality in the building before opening the meeting house for worship services. Clerk sensed the Meeting was still unresolved on this point.
     3. Clerk asked business meeting to consider: “moving forward with further implementation of initial capability to support hybrid meetings” – the second bullet point.  The Trustees have reviewed the cost estimates and say we can move forward. He asked if Friends are comfortable with buying and installing some of the equipment.  Discussion: What is the present cost estimate?  It has dropped from ~$31K to about 22.5 K. An anonymous donor is willing to match individual donations to the project up to $10K. Even if the cost stays at $31K, the Meeting can still cover that.   A question was raised about the number of microphones. Another Friend inquired about consulting with Frank, who has worked a lot with the audio system and had suggested a more cost efficient option.  Terry indicated the current proposal being considered is totally different and the two approaches could not be easily combined. It was mentioned that the committee was well aware of the low cost option and felt that the larger proposal was better suited to the Meetings needs and provided features that are necessary for a quality experience for everyone. Frank agreed that the quality would be less, but that with laptops connecting to the present sound system, with a couple cameras, it could cost $1,000.  The newly upgraded Wi-Fi is great, but what quality do we want? The less expensive option would have inferior quality. As the discussion continued, the clerk expressed concern about how to move forward and asked for a pause. There did not seem to be unity on how to proceed with the second bullet point.
     4. Clerk acknowledged that many of us are quite engaged in this decision, but his role is to make sure we come to unity as we strive to get over the humps; and it seems like we may need more meetings – perhaps up to five – to resolve the questions raised today. Time is a problem since the Clerk will be out of town for a couple weeks.
     5. Friends continued the discussion – covering general and specific questions regarding re-opening the meeting house.  Did the committee consider how assisted listening modifications would tap into the new sound system? It was acknowledged that this is one of the concerns that has to be addressed … How much do we entrust to committees to move projects forward?  How involved should monthly meeting be in details?  The adhoc committee has been working on this for a long time …  A number of Friends spoke in favor of seeking a high quality audio system – that this is a long term investment.  It is false economy to go for the least expensive item and then have to replace it sooner.  Mayim Rabim is contributing to the costs and they have stronger video needs – three cameras – and their needs should be included in the decision. One Friend thought the Meeting should be discussing the bigger questions – hybrid capability, how much money to spend – but not all the technical details. There was a request for a more detailed explanation of the necessary equipment needed to set up the system, to have a list of everything. A Friend reflected on the intrusiveness of the video system, that multiple cameras will make it hard to have privacy. Another Friend said they would greatly appreciate having more time to discuss the proposal … A question was raised if some of us could hold in-person worship services in the meeting house while all the details are being worked out.  Clerk indicated that Meeting decided, previously, to not have in-person services until a hybrid system was in place …  There was a request to have Frank assemble a working model of his proposal to see if his ideas would meet our needs. And still another remarked that we should trust what the committee has put together and move ahead with the proposal, otherwise, this will take too long.  Clerk brought the discussion to a close, saying he is hesitant to suggest following a different path after the ad hoc committee has worked on this proposal for months.  He repeated that Meeting has previously approved proceeding with opening the meeting house to committees and small groups starting July 18; but without finding unity on the rest of the proposal, he is proposing we convene more discussion sessions before bringing the issue back before monthly meeting in August.  There are too many specific questions that remain unresolved.
2. Committee Reports: [Most reports were abbreviated due to time limitations]
   1. Trustees Funds Annual Report – Linda C.  Their role is to manage certain aspects of the Minneapolis Friends Meeting’s legal and financial obligations. They review and sign legal contracts on behalf of the Meeting, make sure that use of the meeting house aligns with guidelines that have been established, keep track of the sections of Lakewood Cemetery that belong to the Meeting, and manage designated funds that are separate from the annual budget.  These designated Trustee funds ensure the integrity of the meeting house property and support specific aspects of the life of the Meeting.  Trustee funds come from allocations from the annual budget, donations and memorials, building use fees, and rent from Mayim Rabim.  The Trustees manage seven funds:  Building Fund – $55,558; Mission, Service and Fellowship Fund – $16,578; Conference Travel – $3,222; History Project – $9,447; Seed Fund – $3,962; Nancy Peterson Memorial Fund – $2,900; Sabbatical Fund – $25,882.  Altogether, the funds add up to ~ $117,550.  That is why the Trustees are confident there is money to fund the hybrid expenses. The building fund is the largest; but the meeting house faces some very significant expenses including replacing the rotting front porch and repairing/replacing the elevator. Of the Sabbatical Fund, which used to be part of the annual budget, $4,000 was used in Pat’s transition with the remainder being held over and still open for further consideration by Meeting.  Discussion: Is there a firm plan to review the funds and do some re-allocation and re-thinking? Linda – this needs to go through monthly meeting, not just the trustees.  Clerk – we won’t be considering that at this time. Is Shepherd Scholarship Fund run by the Meeting’s Trustees? No, it is a separate stand-alone fund with its own Trustees. Friend asked about a proposal to set up a specific fund to pay for the hybrid setup expenses. Presiding Clerk, this needs to be discussed further.  Friends accepted the Trustee’s Report.
   2. Mid-Morning Program Committee Annual Report – Ellen S  [see Attachments for complete report]  Mid-Morning Program Committee plans programs for the time between meetings for worship, 10:15 to 11:00 AM Sundays, taking into consideration needs of the meeting for Quaker-related education and community, interests, well-being, and growth.  The committee meets every other month during the school year, and once during the May-September schedule. This past year has been so eventful that they had more requests for programs than they had time slots, even though response to their annual survey, done electronically, was weaker than usual.  Attendance has been up on Zoom, and it has been possible with Zoom to bring in outstate speakers as presenters. Still, it is a challenge to address topics of interest in a timely fashion.  They will continue to use hybrid technology to present the Mid-Morning program, and they will leave some open slots to accommodate last minute requests for topics or speakers. Friends accepted the report.
   3. Religious Education Annual Report – Julia R   [See Attachments]   Religious Education Committee had no clerk this year. It has been a challenge to run the educational program during the pandemic.  They tried to use Zoom but many of the families had bandwidth issues and only about six students participated. They stopped having classes on Zoom and provided the families with information on how to connect with the youth programs of Northern Yearly Meeting and Madison Meeting. There is much still to do to try to connect with our youth, but with no clerk and only two committee members it is necessary to ask how committed we are to continuing our religious education program in the post pandemic world.  The committee remains concerned about stress on the families with young children and feels that their online story time was an important accomplishment. They are thankful to those who shared their stories.   There was no discussion.  Presiding Clerk – How we spend our time in the Meeting reflects what we believe and what we place our focus on.   Friends accepted the report.
   4. Stewardship and Finance Quarterly update – Mike F  The First Quarter Report for FY 2021-2022 shows income to be $20,500 with expenses of $9,700.  Expenses and income are typically lower during the First Quarter. There have not been any significant expenses that are out of whack. One new expense item in the report has been for the Ad-hoc Covid-19 Relief Program, which has paid out $3000 during the first quarter, out of an annual budgeted amount of $10,000. There was no discussion.  The spreadsheet will be included in the Minutes.
   5. Nursery Annual Report – Emily A.  This report was not given, although little has been happening with the committee or with the nursery.
3. Bill and John are both out of town next week – We will need someone to be Zoom host- please contact Bill.
4. We need to approve a membership request to Winona Preparatory Meeting, but Clerk asks that we wait until next month.
5. Correspondence:  Recent letters were acknowledged, but not read. Clerk asked they be included in the Minutes.
   1. 1. Thank you’ s for our annual contributions came from: American Friends Service Committee, Earlham School of Religion, Friends General Conference, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Northpoint, Friends World Committee for Consultation, Joint Religious Legislative Coalition, Friends School of Minnesota and Friends for a Non-Violent World.
6. Nominating agenda item – Carolyn has not heard from everyone on the committee, yet, and is fine holding it over to next month.
7. Worship

 

ATTACHMENTS

Mid-Morning Program Annual Committee Report

Date: June, 2021    Committee Members: Carol B; Joanne E; Roger M; Ellen S, clerk.

Short description of the committee’s charge: Mid-Morning Program Committee plans programs for the time between meetings for worship, 10:15 to 11:00 AM Sundays, taking into consideration needs of the meeting for Quaker-related education and community, interests, well-being, and growth.  The committee meets every other month during the school year, and once during the May-September schedule.

Accomplishments: Our challenges in the last annual report were to find clarity on what Meeting is wanting and needing through a survey that had to be sent out electronically instead of the usual paper survey at the Meeting House, due to the COVID pandemic.  Although the responses were fewer than usual, the year was so eventful, i.e. with the COVID pandemic, the murder of George Floyd and resulting focus on racism and policing, we had more requests than we had slots available.  Attendance increased with Zoom availability, including for those who have difficulty getting to the Meeting House.  We also got updates on MN Friends School, Northpoint Clinic, Whole Earth Justice, FCNL, QVS, NYM, and FNVW.  It was possible to bring in more out-of-state speakers with use of Zoom.

Challenges:   Our current challenge is to again discern what Meeting is wanting and needing for the next year.  In addition to the electronic survey we sent out, we also had time in the April Meeting for Business to ask for verbal feedback.  The responses were full of very clear and specific ideas as well as gratitude for a strong program this past year.  It has been decided by Meeting that when we return to in-person meetings, we will continue to have Zoom availability, so the meetings will be hybrid in format.  Occasionally we will be leaving some slots open to allow for speaking to current situations that arise, so on the schedule in the bulletin for MMPs for the next month, some slots may be marked, TBA.

Upcoming points of attention:  Our points of attention this next year include continuing to strengthen our Meeting through effective programming and involvement of, and personal sharing by, a steadily increasing number of community members and committees.  The survey shows a wide range of topic interests, sometimes on both ends of a continuum, which we want to honor.  Fortunately, Friends seem to feel comfortable approaching us and suggesting topics and speakers.  We will be looking at how to host the Mid-Morning Programs when the hybrid format takes place.  Roger and Terry are working on technical details for the hybrid format, some of which will relate to how we host in the hybrid format.

How does the committee leave itself open to the leading of the Spirit?  How has the committee experienced movement of the Spirit in its meetings or as it carries out its work?  We feel the Spirit’s leading and moving with more community members volunteering to speak and lead discussions, resulting in community building.  Also, the committee feels that the teamwork and peaceful committee meetings are experienced as the presence and leading of the Spirit as we carry out our work.

 

Religious Education — Annual Report — 2020-21

The Religious Education Committee did not have a clerk this year. There are six committee members: Paul E, Linda F, Sarah G H, Laura M, Julia R and Carolyn V.

Charge: “Develops and runs MFM First Day religious education program for children and youth. Overall planning, including teacher selection, training and recognition; consideration of structure and program, and occasional social activities, done through full committee. Age group class planning done primarily with clusters of age group teachers.”

Main Points of Work: We entered this year with more questions than answers about how to run a First Day School program during a pandemic. Our intention was to provide Sunday morning activities on Zoom during mid-morning programming time for elementary through high-school children twice a month, with a focus on the testimonies of community and equality. It quickly became clear that most families did not have much bandwidth for online First Day School. A total of 6 children attended, perhaps 2-3 times each. The committee is grateful to adults who stepped forward to tell stories. By January, we decided to not offer Sunday morning activities, and instead shifted gears to providing information to families about opportunities for engagement through Northern Yearly Meeting activities. We had hoped to have an outdoor activity with children in early summer, but were not able to find a time that worked for most families.

Upcoming Points of Attention: The meeting as a whole has much work to do to re-engage with children and families. The pandemic brought a change in most families’ schedules. The children in First Day School are disconnected as they haven’t seen each other for more than a year.

The committee currently has no clerk, and only 2 continuing members.

We need further discernment from the whole meeting as to the role and structure of First Day School, and how committed we are to re-envisioning this aspect of our life together.

Experience of Spirit-led Decision-making: Collective concern for the stress that the pandemic has put on families, in particular. Creativity in planning for online story times