question: Congregational reviews

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

If we are going to be totally honest the former oversight visit process often overlooked or misssed real challenges that were existing in congregations. I know of more than one place where an oversight visit came back saying all was well and shorthly afterward a some nuclear explosion took place in the midst of the community. SOmetimes people did not realize what questions needed to be asked. SOmetimes congregations were good at hiding things that were under the surface (put a good face forward for company). SOmetimes only a couple of people knew what the trouble spots were.

At the other end, I am not at all sure that recommendations made by oversight teams (either to the congregation or to the wider church) were often taken all that seriously.

The first ideas coming out of the Comprehensive REview had little to no plan for regular oversight of congregations from the wider church. The next meeting of General Council was very clear that some mechanism for that was needed. SO we now have this rather nebulous plan that some of us wonder if it will accomplish even as much as regular oversight visits did.
 
If we are going to be totally honest the former oversight visit process often overlooked or misssed real challenges that were existing in congregations. I know of more than one place where an oversight visit came back saying all was well and shorthly afterward a some nuclear explosion took place in the midst of the community. SOmetimes people did not realize what questions needed to be asked. SOmetimes congregations were good at hiding things that were under the surface (put a good face forward for company). SOmetimes only a couple of people knew what the trouble spots were.

At the other end, I am not at all sure that recommendations made by oversight teams (either to the congregation or to the wider church) were often taken all that seriously.

The first ideas coming out of the Comprehensive REview had little to no plan for regular oversight of congregations from the wider church. The next meeting of General Council was very clear that some mechanism for that was needed. SO we now have this rather nebulous plan that some of us wonder if it will accomplish even as much as regular oversight visits did.
You almost need an accreditation process with full-time trained accreditors, much like P3 and I are talking about in healthcare. That ensures the assessors ask the right questions, know how to ferret out information that might not be forthcoming, and that the recommendations actually matter for something. Subsequent visits would then focus on how the implementation of the recommendations was done, assuming areas that were not a concern still are not. However, given current reality, not sure the United Church is up for something as involved as that.
 
I see the flaws of the former oversight model. In that model someone from another Presbytery would likely have been more objective. Facilitation and assessment skills would also be useful. Given that we're talking about volunteers, that would be a challenge.

I don't see how self-assessment would work. When there are difficulties between the clergy and the congregation, or problems within the congregation will they be revealed with a self-assessment? I don't believe that model would have been of any use in a situation I was in. We (or some of we) were very thankful for the wisdom of some folks on Presbytery. Their level heads, kind and firm approach along with their experience was very useful. It would have been worse without their help.
 
You almost need an accreditation process with full-time trained accreditors, much like P3 and I are talking about in healthcare. That ensures the assessors ask the right questions, know how to ferret out information that might not be forthcoming, and that the recommendations actually matter for something. Subsequent visits would then focus on how the implementation of the recommendations was done, assuming areas that were not a concern still are not. However, given current reality, not sure the United Church is up for something as involved as that.
When I was a manager in health care, the accreditors were working hospital administrators (and doctors, too, I think) who received training in the accreditation process.

For sure these people needed a high level of skill in addition to impartiality.

Not sure how easily such a model could be adapted to church life. The process struck terror in all our hearts. Ditto for the audits my professional college conducted. Oh yes.
 
I see the flaws of the former oversight model. In that model someone from another Presbytery would likely have been more objective. Facilitation and assessment skills would also be useful. Given that we're talking about volunteers, that would be a challenge.

I don't see how self-assessment would work. When there are difficulties between the clergy and the congregation, or problems within the congregation will they be revealed with a self-assessment? I don't believe that model would have been of any use in a situation I was in. We (or some of we) were very thankful for the wisdom of some folks on Presbytery. Their level heads, kind and firm approach along with their experience was very useful. It would have been worse without their help.
Presbytery was no help at all in my situation. Nor would any self assessment process have uncovered the difficulties that were occurring IMHO.

Perhaps a series of confidential interviews? Not sure how this would have played out either though.
 
I did a funeral for a person whose daughter worked for the hospital for many years as an RN. She saw the administration explode in size without improving hospital functioning. The hospital had passed its accreditation recently but she saw accreditation as faviuting things with lots of administration.
 
I did a funeral for a person whose daughter worked for the hospital for many years as an RN. She saw the administration explode in size without improving hospital functioning. The hospital had passed its accreditation recently but she saw accreditation as faviuting things with lots of administration.
That's not a problem with accreditation, IMHO, that's a problem with how the organization approaches accreditation. We have two people working on our ISO and neither does that full-time save during our annual audits, though they are also charged with bringing the quality focus into other work. However, you are correct that some organizations get so hung up on the accreditation process that they essentially overdo it, which draws resources and energy from other areas. Accreditation is supposed to be evaluating and recommending improvements in existing processes, not creating a raft of new ones.
 
Always remember the administration is far more responsible for operating a function than the lower staff who do little for the process regardless of their greater numbers ...

Well at least until it goes wrong and they are responsible for not knowing the problems ... as a consequence of: "it is best that the lesser folk do not know much"! That is the way classic wisdom goes (leaves us). Imagine the skills lost over recent decades ...

I have been ask questions about standard water treatment concerns ... like algae supported viral systems that few administrators know even exist! As a deficiency they are declared out of the questioning zone!

This is very specific technology that has many parallels that appear as metaphors ... similar but not the same! The misunderstandings are frustrations to the hidden understandings ... the potential manipulation of the information is almost infinite, given the potential for corruptive power! What is easier? Guess!

Sarcasm? There is that chance ... is it possible to appreciate the whole story? It is beyond comprehension and very unlikely to be heard as too wholly ...
 
I filled in the self-assessment checklist and brought it up to our Board (as regional council rep). They nodded their heads at all the things we needed to do. However, no one is doing them. I know that I will need to spearhead a few but I don't want to do it all.
 
That's not a problem with accreditation, IMHO, that's a problem with how the organization approaches accreditation. We have two people working on our ISO and neither does that full-time save during our annual audits, though they are also charged with bringing the quality focus into other work. However, you are correct that some organizations get so hung up on the accreditation process that they essentially overdo it, which draws resources and energy from other areas. Accreditation is supposed to be evaluating and recommending improvements in existing processes, not creating a raft of new ones.
In my experience accreditation always took on a life of its own at evaluation time.

In between evaluations it influenced operations considerably with its requirements for various committees and so on. Not a bad thing I guess.
 
I filled in the self-assessment checklist and brought it up to our Board (as regional council rep). They nodded their heads at all the things we needed to do. However, no one is doing them. I know that I will need to spearhead a few but I don't want to do it all.
Does it come back to the old issue of scarce volunteer resources?
 
It seems you are in.an increasingly difficult situation. One option is to pick an item that one of the board members might be supportive of and bring it to that person. If they buy in and bring it to the board, it might happen. Use what you know about each board member and their interests to strategically work for change. Stephen Covey's book, Seven Habits, taught me much about strategically using our sphere of influence. I wish you all the best in your efforts to help your congregation.
 
Last edited:
In between evaluations it influenced operations considerably with its requirements for various committees and so on. Not a bad thing I guess.
I don't recall us having too much of that committee stuff. We run pretty lean. Perhaps our home care operation (that I am no longer involved with as we sold them) had more of it but I was more peripheral to them. I guess my experience with ISO has been different than with healthcare accreditation. ISO audit reviews processes to make sure things are documented in accordance with our accepted standard and then goes to operations (including head office departments like mine) to see that the documented processes are available to staff and being followed.
 
Does anything ever happen with these self-assessments or do they just get filed to comply with policy?
I think this is a crucial question! And it would be very interesting to know how the regions receive, track, respond to the reports. Has anyone actually yet received feedback on a self-assessment report?

I get that it is a 'new' process & it may take some time yet to create a culture wherein honest self-reflection and discernment are part of the normal cycle. I was once on a board where the question was asked 'what the heck do you even mean by discernment?' Got some ways to go. I suppose it might also speak to an understanding - or lack thereof - of the functions of board governance.
 
In non official communications I've heard things like there are new processes in place that don't understand reports from the past ... it is just material they do not wish to learn from ... presently! And being present is very important compared to what's out there! Eternal things ... thus the present God syndrome ... it cannot extend!

Powerfully male volante ... malevolent ...maybe a storm as it appears as an awesome racket ...
 
Back
Top