Report of the Constitution Task Force

January 2013

With this annual meeting, the Constitution Task Force winds up its initial goal—bringing forward recommendations for amending the Rock Spring Constitution, particularly to resolvea suspension of portions of the Constitution related to board membership and terms.

Our current constitutional structure dates from 1948, and our recent focus on the church’s 100-year history provided some new insights into some of the factors that shaped the governance model that was adopted then. In 1940, the church had only 80 members. By 1949, that number had grown to 225 and by 1953 it had more than doubled again to 485. Meanwhile, the number of children in Sunday School grew from 88 in 1940 to 450 in 1953. The church’s rapid growth mirrored the rapid growth in the neighboring suburbs, and the church’s governing infrastructure was beefed up to help manage that growth. Among those Congregationalists (a decade before the merger that created the United Church of Christ), there was a strong focus on collective decision-making, but probably also a little bit of understandable fear over “who are all these newcomers and can we trust them to maintain our values?”

Sixty years later, it was clear that the old structures needed to be updated, and Council organized a Volunteer Study Committee to suggest ways to address some of the issues that had turned up with volunteer recruitment and board membership. On the recommendation of that committee, the congregation voted in fall 2009 to suspend those portions of the Constitution related to board terms and membership to give boards time to experiment with some new approaches to their work. In early 2011, a Constitution Task Force was appointed to make specific recommendations on amendments to the Constitution. The task force largely completed this work by the October 2012 budget goals meeting, and circulated its draft revisions at that time. It responded to questions and scheduled two listening sessions in November 2012 to provide interested persons with the opportunity to raise concerns. After incorporating two more amendments that were proposed by boards, its final draft was approved by Church Council at its December meeting.

We are confident that this whole process has led to a greater congregational understanding of the Constitution, and what it does—and doesn’t—say. Our success will be measured by the extent to which church boards have been empowered to carry out their missions and to embody the core values of RockSpringChurch.

Summary of Proposed Changes

These amendments were largely developed by the start of 2012, and thus this past year has provided an opportunity for Church Council and individual boards to continue to “live into” the changes and identify potential problems. Here is the substance of the major proposed amendments:

1. Size of Boards

The revised Constitution stipulates that each board will have a minimum of six members, but no maximum. (The Personnel Board’s minimum is set at four.) Boards can ask the Nominating Committee to recruit and nominate additional members, if necessary. However, this new approach is designed to encourage boards to look for ways to delegate responsibilities to other church members who may be willing to take on specific tasks or shorter-term projects. Many boards have made progress with this approach over the past few years, and we expect that this will continue.

2. Terms of Board Service

Following the 2011 nominating process, it was recognized that there was value in the continuity provided by board terms of three years. Nevertheless, it was also recognized that three-year terms can serve as a barrier to potential board service. The proposed change acknowledges that three-year terms are preferred, but permits persons to agree to shorter terms, in hopes that they will choose to extend their terms at the end of their initial commitment. Six consecutive years is set as the maximum that a person can continue to serve on a board without stepping aside. In the case of the Church Council and Personnel Board, where continuity is particularly critical, three-year terms have been retained.

3. Operating Policies

In the past, the Constitution has included proscriptive language on how some boards had to go about their business. In many instances, this language was simply ignored. The task force agreed that boards should be given more flexibility to conduct their business, but that it was reasonable for them to be required to provide Church Council—and interested members of the congregation--with some details about how they were conducting their work. This year the task force developed a template to help boards create these initial “Operating Policies.” The boardsthen prepared and submitted their Operating Policies to Church Council and Council discussed them. Among other things, these documents seem to have helped boards and the Nominating Committee review and understand board membership needs, and to provide a document to help orient new board members or potential board members. We all agreed that the first year of working with these documents would be the hardest; the constitutional revisions call for boards to review and update these policies, as necessary, on an annual basis.

4. Other Updates and Clarifications

There are a number of additional amendments that we believe should not be controversial:

1)the latest Statement of Faith of the United Church of Christ (the one that appears in our hymnal) has been incorporated and an “Objectives” statement, dating from 1917, has been removed.

2) Editing changes have been made throughout to correctly reflect the roles and responsibilities of the “senior pastor” and additional pastors, no matter their titles.

3) Changes have been made to incorporate appropriate electronic notification methods.

4) The clerk’s duties have been modified to reflect more accurately the current roles of the clerk and the professional office staff.

In 2012, the Task Force spent some time reviewing two additional issues:

1) Reorganization of Church Council: In response to some concerns that the current Church Council structure was not serving the church’s governance needs, the task force proposed three solutions to Council to address the identified problems. However, Council could not reach a consensus on the alternatives. Instead, it directed the task force to spend no more than a year reviewing this issue and to come back with a specific recommendation. Members of the task force will be reconvening in the new year to consider how best to approach this task.

2) Board for Congregational Life: With changes in some congregational organizations (most notably Women’s Fellowship and JFFAL), there was some concern about perceived gaps in organizational leadership. The task force spent some time discussing whether a new Board for Congregational Life might be the answer, but did not reach a consensus. At this time, we believe the congregation is still working its way through these issues, particularly at this time of pastoral and staff transition, and that this issue could be readdressed in the future.

Other Constitutional Issues that May Warrant Attention

Last year, we identified several other areas of the Constitution that could be ripe for revision.

However, we believe that the pertinent boards and congregation need to reach a consensus on appropriate changes before further work is done. These areas include:

  • The definition of church membership. It’s important for a Constitution to define who qualifies as a church member so that it does not become an issue during a time of church crisis. On the other hand, at a time when we seek to offer “an extravagant welcome” and encourage “seekers” to participate, this particular constitutional language may need to be addressed.
  • The installation of new members. The Constitution requires advance congregational notice and public affirmation. Are those requirements still appropriate at a time of “extravagant welcome”?
  • The church fiscal year. Should the church change its fiscal year—and mandated congregational meetings--to make the process of planning, pledging and budgeting easier and more predictable for church leaders?
  • Confidentiality of pledges. Should this language be modified, and if so, how? Should an exception be made for capital campaigns?

The Rock Spring Endowment Fund

While the Constitution specifies which persons are responsible for approving expenditures fromthe Rock Spring Endowment Fund, the Endowment is governed by a separate document. During the course of its work, the task force agreed that because of the growth in the value of the endowment, some constitutional changes were in order. Specifically, it believed that the Constitution should specify a threshold above which Church Council would have to seek congregational approval to request an expenditure from the endowment. We found it odd to retain a fairly restrictive approach to modifications of budget line items while having no restriction on the funding that could be requested from the endowment for a particular project. This is not to question any recent Council decisions to turn to the endowment for help with repairs or special projects. Rather, it is to encourage continued good communications with the congregation.

At the time the task force broached this, it was advised that it was hoped that an Endowment Task Force would soon be created. Whether or not those plans go forward, we would encourage the next Church Council, as an interim approach, to adopt such a threshold itself and to publicize that threshold to the congregation in advance of the next large expenditure.

The Future

The past few years have been marked by many changes at Rock Spring, and we expect that the pace of those changes will continue. We also recognize that models of good church governance are also evolving. While these proposed constitutional changes represent some of the most substantive in recent memory, it is possible that over time, we may collectively decide that other models may be more effective. The ultimate goal should be to provide a mechanism through which the church can speak as one in its public pronouncementsand how it chooses to expend its resources, whether financial or otherwise. There must be a way for people to be accountable for the work we do as a church, but also for persons to share their individual gifts in ways that are meaningful and spiritually fulfilling.

We have appreciated the continued time and thoughtful consideration that Council leaders, board chairs and members and the staff have brought to our deliberations. We know that there were many things, often unexpected, that wound up on the plate of church leaders this year, in addition to the sometimes esoteric matter of reviewing our Constitution.

In closing, I want to thank the other members of the task force—Jacki Brown, Peggy Greenwood, Tom Johnson, Allen Moore, Donna Moss and staff liaison Kathy Dwyer—for their hard work and support over the past two years (and even longer for Peggy and Donna who served with me on the Volunteer Study Committee). I like to think that we tried to model what meaningful board service could look like. Everyone that I approached about serving agreed to take on the task, and continued their commitment into a second year. Our members reflected a wonderful diversity of church experience, and our discussions often were enhanced as the relative “newcomers” offered fresh suggestions while the “oldtimers” could help them understand the history behind a particular approach.

We met in a regular meeting place away from the church (okay, it was my home)and at the end of each meeting, we reviewed our calendars and the tasks ahead to pick a meeting date that suited our complicated schedules and the work that could reasonably be accomplished by then. We shared drafts by email, permitting a member who took a job on the other side of the world to continue to contribute his expertise, as his time permitted. We shared our joys—including five weddings and two more to come in the new year—and sorrows—the deaths and illnesses of close family members and other personal and family challenges. And on more than one occasion, we put aside our planned agenda because it was more important to make time to listen to each other first.

Of course, we faced different challenges than many boards do and we probably had greater freedom to operate within the church calendar year. Nevertheless, Rock Spring’s centennial celebration was a good reminder that issues and problems come and go—and return with surprising frequency! But the community and fellowship remain at the heart of what we do together.

Sara Fitzgerald

Chair

Constitution Task Force