Monday's Meeting
This past Monday, fifty- three parishioners met informally to share information with each other about various topics. The history of Toledo's involvement in the clustering and consolidation of the three parishes, the development of "Charting Our Future", the creation of the Task Force, the staus of Salem's lawsuit, and the parish's present financial operations were discussed in an open forum. I felt that the people who attended the meeting were very open and supportive of each other and the future of the parish.
This meeting was organized because of a growing concern that most people in the parish do not have an opportunty to communicate freely with each other. People were contacted very informally and not with an agenda other than to share what they knew with each other. This was not a 'secret' meeting.
I will be writing my opinions about the night's discussions later. I would really like to hear from others present at the meeting first. Please feel free to relate what you felt about the meeting and what was discussed. Those of you who are new to the blog, please click comments and follow the directions. We would love to hear from you!
posted by Karen @ 4:17 PM
16 comments
16 Comments:
It was nice to be able to sit in a room with so many people from the different parishes and talk and listen to each other. No staff was there to try and tell us what to think or how we should feel. I would like to do that more often.
Finally the truth comes out. I believe that the people there were there because they love the parish and the people. I find it interesting that the staff are the ones with all the control. It seems to me we need to listen to those people in our community that truly understand the needs, not someone from the outside.We need to stand up and stop allowing others to tear us apart!We are a parish it's the staff that is standing in the way.
Thank The Lord!!!
I'm not much of a 'meeting' person, but I enjoyed the freshness of the night!!! The speakers seemed so sincere. I got a lot out of the talks, but mostly that a lot of questions need to be asked, and a lot of answers had better be coming!
Proverbs 15:22
Plans fail when there is no counsel, but they succeed when counselors are many.
To me, the most upsetting thing was the secrecy about the name. That name Transfiguration always bothered me, but now that I know that it was a setup, it really bothers me. Why did they go through all that waste of time about pretending to pick a new name when Toledo already did it? Why all the secrets? We're a church.
"Cry out as if you have a million voices, for it is silence which kills the world." (St. Catherine of Sienna, Letter 16 to a great prelate)
I heard that there will a meeting on Monday night(Oct. 2) for the first annual "Celebrate Our Legacy" Meeting. I think the meeting is at 6:30, invitation only.Are they starting a new fundraiser? Shouldn't they get a clear financial picture before they ask people for money again? They said that at the meeting to wrap up the First Legacy Campaign, that some of the people in charge didn't even know that the Youth house was purchased with money they shouldn't have taken from the fund. The fundraiser rules never said that you could buy a building with that money. A percentage was just supposed to be spent on part of the Youth Minister's salary. They need to follow the rules, don't they? If they want people to give to anything?
Questions that should have answers:
How much money was raised in the first Celebrating our Legacy campaign?
How much money was withdrawn from this fund for the youth house and the youth minister's salary?
How much money is still in the current Legacy endowment fund?
And what is the current rate of return?
Where is it invested?
How much interest/money was earned on the account last year?
Is/was all or any of this on the last financial statement?
To show responsible stewardship of the funds already donated, all of these should be accounted for and public knowledge, in my opinion.
Is this an endowment fund or not?
I think that they passed out information at the small meeting they had after church one Sunday. There were some figures on a paper, but I don't have one. And since most people in the parish who gave to the endowment fund did not seem to attend that meeting, it would be great if someone could write in to this comment section and give us the answers. Doesn't seem to be much harm in that. I think most people just want access to information. Confidentiality should apply to confessions and counseling, not our finances. Am I right on that one?
Monday evening's meeting was not a secret meeting, but one that was requested by many people who wanted to know what was going on in the parish. Invitations were spread freely,by Word of Mouth and e-mail. The staff was not officially invited because it was felt that they tend to "stifle" discussions. But those who organized the meeting said that noone would complain if any staff member came in.
Father Kaufman was told about the gathering on Thursday morning. And judging by Sunday's homily, he needs to talk to more people about what was discussed.
In the "Charting Our Future" Program, Father and Sister will be gathering in people's houses to "ask the tough questions" about what is going on in the parish (this quote from Dr. Smith, noted facilitator). I would think that they would be thrilled that we started a little early?
I think that another informal gathering will be planned within a week or so? Maybe the gatherings should be titled "The Secret Meetings"?
As I watched the interaction of those present on Monday night, I think that most people, when properly informed, are quite capable of making up their own minds about the future of their parish.
Since when is it "wrong" for a group of interested parishioners to get together informally to discuss what's going on in their parish?
Isn't it better to talk together in person than to relate second hand information or to be uninformed?
If anything, I would think that more information shared is only a good thing, and that it promoted a feeling of community: not "we" or "them" but a feeling of "us".
And hasn't the feeling of "us" been the goal all along?
PS to bible thumper: I love your decription of enjoying the "freshness" of the meeting!
I assume that the people who claim it was a "secret' meeting, are those whom most people did not want to tell about the meeting? Parishioners who are not willing to listen to any discussions. They are the ones who make it known that noone should have any opinion except the opinion that they are told they should have, by the staff. Sad isn't it? I suppose those same type of people were the ones who cheered the Pharisees on when they condemned that "rabble rouser" from Nazareth.
Ah, and so it begins!
Cephas, of course, someone has heard someone (staff) say that it was a secret, and that it was wrong. I can verify the time and the place. But do you really want me to state the person's name in this forum? I love that you think that dialogue has not already been tried. By many a man. And I smiled when I read that you think that there has been 'strong reaction' to 'nonexistant claims'.You are either really are new to this situation or you are one of "those sorts of people" who finally has arrived on this site.
Simon, Son of John?
Search for Truth. There is Truth to be known, and it is one of my fundamental goals to find truth. Truth in every situation and assent to it.
I agree. Let's climb.
I have enjoyed reading the comments on this post. I appreciate that many of you took the time to write comments and that you are quite candid. Open communication is to be treasured.
Many on this blog are new to email and blogging. In using these new mediums of email, blogging, and instant communication, studies show that most readers are more inclined to read a post in the mindset of themselves (the reader), and not necessarily in the mindset of the writer.(as the writer intended). It's not as easy to recognize tone, inflection, sarcasm or tongue in cheek comments when written, and all too easy to read a post once and fire off an instant reply.
I have seen many a mailing list, blog, etc, dissolve into "flaming" responses. Sometimes ten comments/posts may happen, before the original writer is able come back on and explain what he/she meant by the use of a phrase.
I guess what I'm saying is while this new, fast mode of communication is terrific, there's an evolving etiquette to consider also. In no way would I discourage comments,but perhaps "read twice" would be a way to minimize confusion.Try to read the original post and all comments leading up to the comment/post you'd like to comment on.
Read a post twice before you type your reply, and read your reply twice, before actually posting your comment.
Just thinking: "Reverence for All"
Post a Comment
<< Home