Leeds Methodist Mission Management Committee Preliminary Business Leeds (Mission Circuit) Meeting Minutes of the meeting held at Oxford Place Centre 6th February 2012 1. Opening devotions were led by the Revd Adrian Burdon 2. Welcome and attendance: the Revd Adrian Burdon welcomed everyone to the meeting. (ii) The chair asked that the meeting recognise Mr Michael Noble (District Development Enabler and Convener of the District Review Group) who had been asked to attend the meeting. Present: Mr Paul Berry, the Revd Philip Bee, the Revd Adrian Burdon (Chair), Miss Janet Caswell, Dr Robin Carmichael, Miss Marjorie Cossey, the Revd Pat Creamer, the Revd Robert Creamer, Mr John Goacher, Mrs Patricia Goacher,Mrs Irene Hebden, Mrs Gill Jewell, Deacon Jenny Jones, Mr Richard Lowe, Mr Bernard Neville, Mr Trevor Parker, Mrs Gwen Pridmore, the Revd Liz Smith, Mr Kenneth Tait (Secretary) (iii) Apologies were received from: the Revd Caroline Ryder, Mr Rob Lolley, (iv) Absent:Ms Jane Aitchison, the Revd Darren Garfield, Mr Felix Kumi-Ampofo, Mr Andy Poole, Mr John Witt. 3. Mr Brian Butler (Secretary to the committee 2005-2010) The meeting prayed giving thanks for the life and work of Brian who had died since our last meeting and asking God s blessing on his family. 4. Notification of Any Other Business There was one item which the meeting dealt with immediately. It was proposed by Bernard Neville and seconded by Jenny Jones that the bank accounts at the Cooperative Bank be closed and replacement accounts at the Charities Aid Foundation opened. A vote was taken and no one was against. It was noted that the process would take some time and that more specific resolutions might be required. 5. Minutes of the previous meeting (14th December 2011) were approved and signed as a correct record with the following note: Item 11 read as though ordination of Deacon Jenny Jones was definite. At the time of the meeting this was subject to her meeting certain requirements which she has since done. The minute was left unchanged. 1. 6. Matters arising from the minutes There was one item: Appointment of a caretaker [10 (ii)]. It was reported that there had been numerous expressions of interest which had resulted 20 applications. Short-listing was to take place on 7th February with interviews on 10th February with the intention of making an appointment subject to the usual checks. 7. Response to the the recommendations in the Review Report This was continued from the previous meeting and the conversation was guided by a list of five organisational recommendations (Item 8 below) and 16 financial recommendations (Item 9). In both cases the main points of the discussion are recorded (the numbering does not correspond to the numbering in the agenda). 8. Discussion of organisational recommendations 1 This was pointed out later in the meeting. 1/6
(ii) There had been several meetings of the Review Action Group, the most recent on 18th January 2012. The District Policy Committee (DPC) had met specially (on 1st February 2012) to consider the Review Report. They had indicated in their discussion that the challenges were daunting, but were impressed with the work done and recognised the seriousness of the financial situation which needs to be dealt with urgently. The meeting had been helpful. The DPC will receive an update on progress in responding to the recommendations at its meeting in March with a view to presenting a response to the Review Report at Synod on 12th May 2012. The meeting was reminded that under Standing Order 512A Leeds M(Mission) Circuit is a project carried on by the Synod and hence the District has responsibility. However, the energy and commitment had to come from the people on the ground. (iii) Recommendation: that the managing trusteeship for the Oxford Place premises be undertaken by the Leeds District. The aim of this was to make the District management and ownership of the project more effective through consideration of possible different structures, including (for example) the setting up of a charitable limited company. (iv) Two recommendations from the Review Report were discussed together: that Oxford Place Methodist Church continue as a separately constituted local church worshipping within and at the heart of the building; and that the circuit of the Oxford Place Local Church be considered within the other reflections on the composition of circuits as part of the Way forward for Mission agenda. There was much discussion of the issues relating to these two recommendations and it was emphasised that all of the proposals were tentative, requiring much time and thought before specific proposals could be made. The Leeds Mission Team had met to discuss these two recommendations and members of that team contributed questions and issues raised at that meeting. (a) The management of the property and the weekday work would become a district responsibility and the Sunday worshipping congregation would become a church in a (new) circuit, but would continue to worship at Oxford Place without having responsibility for the property. Any worship groups other than the Sunday congregation would be considered as part of the weekday work. (b) It was reported that the Circuit Leadership teams of the Leeds (Mission) Circuit and the Leeds South Circuit had met (19th January 2012) with a view to conversations about the possible creation of a new circuit comprising all the churches of the two circuits. The outcome of this meeting had been to produce a joint statement which had been communicated to all church congregations in the two circuits.(the content of the letter distributed to the Oxford Place congregation is given as Annex A to these minutes.) (c) Both Leeds South Circuit and Leeds (Mission) Circuit should have priority status within the district. (d) Did this mean that the Oxford Place Church (OPC) would join another circuit and leave its mission behind? The circuit created would be a new circuit (not a church joining an existing one) and there was no intention to separate the church from the work, rather the aim was to improve the management and oversight of the administration and ministry to facilitate future development. Nothing was being proposed that would stop OPC being involved in the work of the Leeds Mission. (e) In talking about this, confusion can arise by our use of the word mission is it the work of mission or the use of the Mission building? The work of mission (Monday-Friday) would be overseen by an important body [the (new) management committee]. (f) It s easy to see how the property and finances could be managed separately but what about the weekday work? This includes the Children s Centre, Person-to-Person listening service, the Lounge Café, chaplaincies, as well the ministry to all those who come on to the premises. 2/6
(v) (g) The DPC had recognised that at present that property, mission and local church are complexly interrelated. One way of looking at things was to identify building-oriented elements (e.g. the café, because we only provide the space) and person-centred elements (e.g. chaplaincy and the day-to-day ministry of the local church). (h) The first step should be to get the framework then work out the details (with the Leeds South Circuit). At the moment the framework is vague and this is a valid concern. Time is required and it would be wrong to rush the process and in trying to deal with one crisis end up creating another. However, we must work with the framework of the connexional year. The issue is not just finance. We are looking for a more sustainable and different way of taking forward mission in the city centre. It is a work-in-progress that will take note of expressed concerns that will release people s energy into mission rather than supporting the present structure. The status quo is not an option. The creation of a renewed vision is being worked on. The current version of the vision statement does not make the distinction between the vision of Leeds Mission and the vision for Oxford Place Church. Further work on this will be taken through the Church Council so that the vision comes from the people rather than from the top. (vi) The fact that several related things are been taken forward in parallel, some of which are urgent, others not, makes it difficult to see how the whole is progressing. 9. Discussion of financial recommendations (ii) Tenancy renewals and rent/service charges increases in hand. Thanks were expressed for the work undertaken by the administrator (Trevor Parker) and Deacon Jenny Jones. Still some difficulty getting agreement on the wording of leases between our solicitors and the Trustees for Methodist Church Purposes (TMCP) Taking steps to let vacant space in hand. Two or three organisations have expressed interest. If space was let to non-charitable organisation then there would be VAT implication (e.g. an increased rate on fuel). This issue was recognised by the Church/Circuit Treasurer (Bernard Neville) and the Deputy District Treasurer (Alan Parker). (iii) Review of sessional charges. This had been done and there were now four tiers private organisations (most expensive), public sector, charities, Oxford Place tenants (least expensive). (iv) Promotion of conferencing facilities (with the Nurture Project). This was not happening as quickly as had been hoped. The Nurture marketing person is on sick leave. Also it was understood that Nurture has received a grant to fund this initiative. (v) Restructuring of caretaker and administrator posts. (a) The caretaker post had been dealt with (see also item 6 above). (b) It was agreed that we move forward on the basis of the Consultation Document presented at the previous meeting with one change: where the number of hours to be worked each week was 15 this should be increased to 16 so as not to bar the employee from applying for tax credits. (Proposed by Marjorie Cossey and seconded by John Goacher; a vote was taken and no one was against.) (c) Concern was expressed that nothing would happen during the Superintendent s sabbatical (15th March to 15th June 2012). This inevitable delay was regrettable but the meeting urged those responsible to do as much as possible before the middle of March (i.e. job specifications and the like), and to make preparations in the Superintendent s absence so that the process of filling the new posts could begin as soon as he returned. (d) It was emphasised that it was important to get the appointments right (to the posts of Manager and Finance Officer) as maximising income is skilled work. 3/6
(e) In response to a question about the ability of the proposed structure to respond to any increased workload resulting from developments (See footnote to item 8 (iii)(h) of the minutes of the previous meeting) assurances were given that the proposals were realistic now but did have the capacity to expand. (vi) Transfers of income (two resolutions). The resolutions mention circuit and Mission. The meeting asked that these terms be clarified as there was no mention of the church. (vii) A debtor control ledger had been set up. (viii) Funding of the University Chaplain by the district. An application had been made to the District Advance Fund for a grant to fund the total cost of the University Chaplain. Also a grant application was being made to connexional funds towards the cost of providing a university chaplain. A separate conversation is needed about how the chaplain should be supported and to which circuit she or he should be attached. (ix) Exploring the church joining with another circuit see item 8(iv) above. (x) Review of all budgets in hand. Staffing is the biggest cost. (xi) Financial report to the trustees this is dealt with in the Financial Review Annex 6 where a format for such reports is suggested [Annex 6 does not form part of the Financial review Summary and a copy of Annex 6 is given as Annex B of these minutes.] (xii) District representative with finance experience to join Finance and Property committee. Still need to identify someone who is willing to serve. (xiii) Delegate authority to District & Circuit Treasurers and Chair of Finance and Property committee. It was proposed Deacon Jenny Jones and seconded by Bernard Neville that expenditure between 5000 and 20000 agreed by the Finance and Property committee could, if necessary, be approved jointly by the District & Circuit Treasurers and Chair of Finance and Property committee instead of waiting for the approval of this committee. A vote was taken and no one was against. (xiv) Appoint new chair of Finance and Property committee with finance skills. Still need to identify someone who is willing to serve. (xv) Appoint someone to ensure listing buildings consent process is followed. The Superintendent agreed to do this. It was noted that it is the responsibility of the committee as the managing trustees to ensure that the proper procedures are followed. 10. Further comments It was noted that progress on responding to the Review Report had been made, and it was suggested that the Annual Report which is normally produced in time for the Church Anniversary in October be prepared sooner so that it could go to the Autumn Synod. 11. Dates of Meetings 12. Closing devotions 12th March 2012 this meeting would followed the standard agenda 16th April 2012 only if there was business requiring a meeting Both meetings would be held at Oxford Place Centre at 7.30pm. The meeting closed with prayers led by the Revd Adrian Burdon and all present saying the Grace. 4/6
Annex A Letter to the Sunday Congregation 5 February 2012 Dear friends, On Thursday 19 January 2012, the ministers and Circuit Stewards of the Leeds (South) and Leeds (Mission) circuits met with the Chair of District and District Development Enabler in order to explore a vision for working together to create a new circuit which would bring together the churches of the Leeds (South) circuit and Oxford Place Methodist Church. It was sensed that there is sufficient energy in this vision to seek the encouragement of the church councils of the churches in both circuits to establish formal conversations under the "Way forward for Mission" process. As this was simply an initial conversation, those present wish to remind the circuits that the many hopes, questions, and possible concerns have not yet been addressed, but will be fully explored within any ongoing process. As conversations make progress we shall be keeping the congregation informed. If, in the meantime, you have any questions about this process then please speak to the ministers, the church stewards or circuit stewards. Please continue to pray for the development of the Leeds Methodist Mission and the Oxford Place Methodist Church as it evolves over the coming months. With many thanks and best wishes, Yours faithfully, The Rev Dr Adrian Burdon Superintendent Minister 5/6
Annex B 6/6