Philadelphia Yearly Meeting
Interim Meeting
25 July 2002

Minute # 1. Worship and Opening Exercises

The meeting settled into worship at the appointed hour of 6:00 p.m. at Arch Street Meetinghouse, Philadelphia, PA.

The clerk, Chris Mahon (Woodstown), introduced herself and asked those at the clerks table to introduce themselves - Chris Nicholson (Germantown), alternate clerk, and Susan White (Princeton), recording clerk.

The clerk then welcomed the following new members, alternates and visitors: Howard van Breemen (Wicomico River) representative, Lillian Willoughby (Central Philadelphia), alternate representative, and Al Roberts (Willistown), substitute for representative. Guests were Mario Cavallini (Mickleton and Meeting on Worship and Ministry), Mary Anne Crowley (Staff Religious Education), Melanie Douty (Radnor and PYM Staff), Susan Elliott (Chester), Elizabeth Foley (Mickleton and Staff Development), Donna Hartmann (Lehigh Valley), Marion Hartman (Moorestown), Viv Hawkins (Central Philadelphia and Staff Business Services), Tom Hoopes (Central Philadelphia and Staff Education), Lisa Bowers Isaacson (Tottenham / Britain Yearly Meeting and Devonshire House), Paul Bowers Isaacson, (Tottenham / Britain Yearly Meeting; Devonshire House; and Meeting for Sufferings of BYM, which is analogous to Interim Meeting of PYM), Gretchen Jeavons (Swarthmore), Allen Reeder (Abington and Staff Publications), Gail Woodbury (Germantown and Staff Accounting), Sadhana Vairale (from India, studying at Pendle Hill), Benjamin Waxman (Chestnut Hill, and AFSC Coordinator for September 11 program), and Michael West (Centre).

Minute # 2. Minutes of 27 June 2002.

The minutes from the meeting held on 27 June 2002 were approved with the following corrections and additions

Minute #4, (p. 5), No. 2: The last sentence should read Much work would need to done to develop and support this concept.

Minute #6, (p. 10): The third paragraph should conclude are in the hands of the Friends Fiduciary Corporation…. In Item 4: Middletown Meetings location: Middletown (Concord Quarter). The last line should read …Center on Conscience and War.

Minute #6, (p. 11): First paragraph, last sentence, should read …to help young Friends

Minute # 7, (p. 12), Item C: The Nonviolent Peaceforce is the correct form of the name. The third line should read Friends minuted support for this body. In the next to last paragraph, the first line should read is subject to a variety.

Minute #9, (p. 13): Vivienne Hawkins was pointed to the Friends Center Board.

Howard Cell, clerk of the Peace and Concerns Standing Committee, asked that the following information from the June meeting be added at the end of the section reporting the work of that standing committee in Minute # 6, Item B, (p. 11):

Checks can be sent directly to Philadelphia Yearly Meeting noted as being For FWCC Conference to repay the $4,000 cost to PYM of support for the January 2003 FWCC Conference. Also, checks to provide broad support for young Friends to attend the conference can be sent directly to the Friends World Committee for Consultation, marked as being for the Conference Youth Fund. The address is FWCC Section of the Americas, 1506 Race Street, Philadelphia PA 19102.

Minute # 3. Business of Special Session

The clerk drew Friends attention to the stated reason for this special called session of Interim Meeting, which was to consider further how we can best respond to the challenge offered in the General Secretary's end of year report, "Just Surviving or Thriving?" Friends had considered the points raised in the report at length at Interim Meeting in May. The June meeting had such a full agenda that the report could not be considered further. Therefore the clerk called this special session for that purpose.

The clerk began by offering that while it was useful preparation for us all to consider the questions raised in the General Secretary's report, tonight she would ask Friends to put aside prepared speeches and positions. She suggested that no one person has the answer to how we can best move forward as a Yearly Meeting, and that only corporately and through the grace of the Divine can we find the way. In our session this evening, she offered that our work can best be served if we put egos aside, listen attentively, and be loving to each other. She then called for a period of opening worship.

In the gathered silence, a Friend offered the hymn tune Simple Gifts. Another Friend offered the example of the basket making craft that has come down from the Shakers. In a simple and utilitarian object, the living testimonies to simplicity, integrity, and community can be felt long past the life time of the makers. In what ways can we go about our ordinary work as individuals and Friends to witness to the Light, both now and in the future?

To open our discussion, the clerk raised up the following questions from the General Secretary's report:
1. Do we want to have a process for Philadelphia Yearly Meeting to name
priorities on a regular basis?
2. Is this something we can do with integrity?
3. Is this a wise way to do our business?

Friends offered the following in a wide ranging discussion which touched on a variety of themes:

Direct responses to the clerk's questions:

A Friend offered the following: Yes, we should provide priorities to Thom and the staff. We are talking about organizing Thom and the staff. We could begin by deciding now to use the three priorities Thom suggests in his end-of-year report on the center of page 7, under the heading "Three Programmatic Foci." We could then do strategic planning for the next three to five years. Interim Meeting is the body that should make decisions and set priorities for Philadelphia Yearly Meeting.

Another Friend suggested that in thinking about the value of setting priorities, we could consider the parable of the talents and ask what is right stewardship of resources, both human and monetary, both of which are finite. Good stewardship would recognize finiteness. If we decide to set priorities, how would it happen and who would do it? Saying "Yes, we should set priorities" may lead to too large a set of possibilities since it is hard to think of what is not covered by the priorities. How could we articulate more fully the questions that would arise if we decided to set priorities? The Friend suggested four questions:
1. What would strengthen, nurture, and help Monthly Meetings?
2. How can we help individual Friends from different Monthly Meetings but with a common concern for witness find each other across the Yearly Meeting?
3. How can we best care for our Quaker institutions that we have inherited from the past?
4. How can we maintain connections with the wider world of Friends?

Jackie Bowers, Clerk of the Financial Stewardship Committee, noted that in the three priorities that Thom offered on p. 7 of the End of Year Report, he is reflecting what has come out of Financial Stewardship's recommendations for the last three years, based on the survey of priorities from individual Monthly Meetings. She suggested that we now have the possibility of going ahead with using these Monthly Meeting priorities to rightly order the work of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting in the coming months and perhaps years. She reminded us that last month she came to Interim Meeting with a "heads-up" that we are reaching a time when we can no longer fund all projects. We will have to set priorities. She suggested that there has to be a group that takes data and acts upon it. We have a year within which to set priorities for the following fiscal year, 2003-2004.

Perspectives from other organizations:

A Friend who is a resident noted that at Medford Leas there is a structure which in her experience works very well. Medford Leas is operated by the Estaugh, a Quaker-related organization which is guided in its philosophy and practices by the teachings and beliefs of the Religious Society of Friends. At Medford Leas, the structure includes an Executive Director and the Estaugh Board of Trustees. The Estaugh Board helps to determine priorities for the Executive Director. As a resident, she feels comfortable with a group whose members she can approach directly.

A Friend who had worked for the American Friends Service Committee noted that AFSC sets priorities, and then small groups set goals to meet those priorities. There is a central outline for the staff and for volunteers to address two questions: What should the organization do? and What is the organization about?

A Friend considered the question of whether we want to set priorities. From experience with the Friend General Conference Board, he suggested that we should set priorities, and do so corporately. Strategic planning could begin with a visioning session, which might be carried out in one or a series of retreats. As one who has been through this process, he reported that it is not a good idea to delegate to a small group the setting of priorities for an organization as large as Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. In this Friends view, the Devil in such a situation is in the details.

A Friend noted that on boards where he had served, including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation, the directors could set program priorities, We do this We dont do that. If Thom had such a provision, that would make life easier for him and his staff. The Friend offered that in Thoms letter accompanying the end-of-year report, he seems quite clear about priorities he should be following, but is pulled in too many different directions at one time.

The Advisory Committee of Representative Meeting was recalled:

A Friend noted that a number of those present here at Interim Meeting had served on the Advisory Committee of Representative Meeting. The Advisory Committee was laid down when the new structure was created because the work was planned to be done by other bodies within the new structure. However, the Friend felt that what is missing from the work being done now is the evaluative process of the old Advisory Committee. We dont have a body to do that.

A Friend offered that the Advisory Committee had been a sieve through which new ideas and projects could be passed to remove unnecessary elements before being considered by Representative Meeting.

Monthly Meetings were considered in the following ways:

A Friend reported that her Monthly Meeting is not energized. She is trying to energize Friends there, and will continue trying to energize them. We have an awesome responsibility to guide the Yearly Meeting and energize Friends in our Meetings and in committees and working groups, but to set up an overarching control group would be inappropriate. We must respect the up-side-down quality of this peculiar religion of Quakers. Individual members are at the top, and the director is down below, supporting the members. If we set up a structure, it has to be in keeping with our basic tenants.

A Friend asked if there is a way to challenge Monthly Meetings to set their own priorities. The Yearly Meeting could flounder in trying to do this for them.

A friend asked how well do we communicate what goes on at Interim Meeting to our Monthly Meetings? How well do we listen to members of our Meetings?

Another Friend suggested that Financial Stewardship could suggest to Interim Meeting priorities based on the annual survey of Monthly Meetings. Interim Meeting could then create a set of recommended priorities to offer to the Budget Committee, which could create financial support for a prioritized list of projects within the Yearly Meeting, based on the covenants offered by the Monthly Meetings.

Philadelphia Yearly Meeting was another theme of discussion.

A Friend asked about what we mean by "Philadelphia Yearly Meeting"? Is this individual Friends and individual Monthly and Quarterly Meetings, or the Yearly Meeting in session, or the staff organization? The Friend went on to ask for whom are we suggesting that priorities be set? Is it for the staff? Or is it for individuals and Monthly Meetings?

Every twenty years we need to reinvent ourselves. We should be here to let go of our pre-conceived notions of what the Yearly Meeting is and should be, and be ready to act on leadings and openings.

Since September 11 and the following events, Friends of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting have just experienced a year wandering in the desert. We all wanted to come to unity and clarity, and we worked at finding our way. We have an unusual structure. But more important than the structure is that we can be open to allowing the Spirit to come through in our work, and we can be open to hearing each other.

A Friend raised up that we are talking about process, and suggested that perhaps more than any other religious body, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting is closer to functioning as a true membership body. We could utilize Thom's background as a management consultant to help us find better ways to channel our strength as individual Friends, Monthly and Quarterly Meetings, and members of Standing Committees and Working Groups into a coherent corporate witness. Therefore we could help Thom and the staff in their work by providing direction and setting priorities.

A Friend noted that the most dramatic thing that has occurred this year, and during his many years of experience as a Friend within Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, is the Peace Well proposal. He would like some concreteness to how the Peace Well will work.

A Friend reported that as he listens to the comments of other Friends, things are beginning to make more sense. Is there the treasury to support all that we would like to do as a Yearly Meeting. What would be the total cost? If there is not enough to pay for everything, could we have a list of projects in priority order, perhaps prepared by the General Secretary and the staff, and then Interim Meeting could go down the list, funding as seems appropriate, until the money runs out?

Small group to review projects and suggest priorities for the Yearly Meeting:

A Friend offered that a smaller body which has the authority to evaluate a process or other work, and then prepare a report to bring to Interim Meeting, could enable our work.

A Friend has given thought to the idea of an executive committee of Yearly Meeting setting priorities. Interim Meeting seems the most appropriate body to be this executive committee for two reasons. First, every Monthly Meeting has a representative who comes or can come to Interim Meeting. Secondly, Interim Meeting is the only body that has the authority to act for Philadelphia Yearly Meeting.

A Friend suggested that Interim Meeting may be the appropriate body to implement priorities once they are set. What happens when there are aren't enough resources to do all good works that you would like to undertake? It can be worthwhile to say where we should put our human and fiscal resources at a particular point in time.

A Friend suggested that we consider the following set of questions in thinking about creating a group to suggest priorities for the Yearly Meeting:
1. Who would be in the group, what would we call it, and what kind of decision
making authority would the group have?
2. Which decisions would the group make and which decisions would Interim
Meeting make?
3. Would they set priorities and then bring those priorities to Interim Meeting
for approval, or would the group be charged with suggesting actions and
alternatives for priorities already set by Interim Meeting?

A Friend pointed out that there is an Administrative Group within Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. It is made up of the General Secretary, staff directors, and the clerks of Yearly Meeting, Interim Meeting, Financial Stewardship, and the Standing Committees. The group has no authority, but meets monthly, coming together to talk and to share. Some Friends wondered if this group might serve as the smaller advisory group to review projects for Interim Meeting. Several Friends who serve on the group spoke against such a plan, saying that each of them is too closely involved with the overall process to be able to work effectively in such an environment.

A Friend offered that when we think about structure, the most important item is the higher authority that is present in the gathered Meeting. And yet he finds Interim Meeting cumbersome as an organization, and one in which it is difficult to reach consensus. A small group might scrub or screen or filter concerns and projects so that they are seasoned by the time they come to Interim Meeting. Then we might be able to reach decisions by the power of a higher authority in the gathered Meeting

Another Friend offered that he has been trying to simplify the questions before us. A basic question he asks himself as an individual is at what level he should put his resources, his Monthly Meeting , Quarterly Meeting, or Yearly Meeting? With every Monthly Meeting represented, Interim Meeting may be the best place to make such decisions for the Yearly Meeting. But we also have the Standing Committees, which are established to discern the rightness of actions that we could take. Should we at the Interim Meeting level apportion our resources, and then trust the Standing Committees to do their work?

A Friend asked us to be aware, as we think about how a smaller group could be organized, that an inordinate amount of work in any organization is done by the same few people. It is good to draw on experienced Friends, but we should be mindful of burnout of their part if the work is too concentrated, a possible danger in a group smaller than Interim Meeting.

The work of the General Secretary and staff were considered in these ways:

A Friend thanked Thom for provoking thought. We should consider whether we can do all that we try to do.

A Friend offered that having staff input for deliberations on priorities was valuable. Staff are in a position to provide a balanced overview of the entire Yearly Meeting.

From a Friend's experience of 30 years service on the board of a Friends school, and 15 years service on the board of a Friends retirement village, she knows that someone has to be empowered to call the fire department when the place is on fire.

The message Thom is bringing to us should be going the other way, from us to Thom and the staff. We are not supplying Thom and the staff with what they need. Both Thom and the staff work very hard. Thom has asked fundamental and important questions.

A Friend offered that she had not been able to be present at the last two sessions of Interim Meeting, and learned about the General Secretary's end of year report from printed copies of the report and the addendum. She found Thom's first report in May, more generally stated as to the need for priorities and perhaps a smaller decision making group, to be frightening, while the Addendum in June, with specific examples of how our work could be enhanced through such a process, was re-assuring.

A Friend was appreciative of Thoms service in naming the three priorities that he suggests. They came about through the work of various committees, seasoned by the experience of staff, and honed by Thoms listening to many people from across the Yearly Meeting.

A Friend noted that he has heard Thom speak many times on priorities beginning with the issues that come up from Meetings. The Friend would like to hear more about Thom's vision for the Yearly Meeting. He works in the world of executive secretaries of like organizations, and perhaps could offer a vision for our work from that perspective.

A Friend offered that the part of Thom's report that speaks most strongly to us is of a compelling vision for the work of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. Thom suggested that priorities should flow from vision, and not just stand alone.

Looking to the past, and questioning assumptions, were also touched upon.

A Friend noted that historically Friends came to have a vital impact on their communities. Can we learn from the past?

A Friend offered that perhaps we are making unfounded assumptions, such as:
The way that we do it now is the way we will always to it. While it is true that until we minute a change, we will keep doing it that way, but that doesn't have to be for "always".
"After a Yearly Meeting session, we are aware of what our priorities are because they are in the Minutes." This is true only if we review the minutes of Yearly Meeting in session, and look to be aware of and take action on the priorities we have stated.
"Money is the only limited resource that we must prioritize" We need to set priorities for our talents and energies as well as our financial resources. It is not as simple as we might want to believe to include all types of resources.

After more than an hour and a half's discussion, the clerk asked if Friends felt it was appropriate to have priorities for Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. Friends approved, and rested from formal discussion in a short break.

The clerk then asked whether it would be helpful to have an advisory group to sift and recommend priorities for our consideration, and suggest priorities to Interim Meeting? She noted that Friends seem firm in finding Interim Meeting to be the place to approve priorities. The clerk suggested that if we approve a smaller group, we would have to trust them.

A Friend suggested that in recent years we have been reluctant to bring tough questions to Interim Meeting. The Friend suggested that we encourage the Standing Committees, and Monthly and Quarterly Meetings to bring tough issues, and not feel that they need to be polished to come before this body. Issues that come before us are complex. We seem to be stuck on the small group question, and the Friend is concerned that the review of issues by a small group would become a closed process. Matters to come before Interim Meeting should be defined in definite ways, and be mission-based rather than micro-based. If Interim Meeting can make decisions on hard issues, then more could come directly before us. If there is a clarity of mission, then we can bring more issues to Interim Meeting.

The clerk suggested that there are two questions we still need to address this evening:
1. How can we give the staff the direction they need right now?
2. How can we make real and appropriate a long-term process addressing priorities?

In response, Friends offered the following:

A Friend noted that people ask Thom to give us a vision. Maybe instead we should ask God. Could we ask Thom to help us in the visioning process? From visioning we can determine priorities. Our actions then would come from priorities. We have committees, volunteers, and staff in place to carry out the work that we determine upon. The visioning process should start with one simple question: "Why are we here?"

A Friend noted that she feels excited about the clarity of vision that she feels we are approaching. A survey goes out from Financial Stewardship, and we have priorities suggested by every Monthly Meeting that takes part, that we can form into a whole to use for the current year. We then have the gathered Meeting as a higher authority. If Interim Meeting is going to take on this role, are there things that we must relinquish?

Another Friend wondered if Interim Meeting might be willing to devote a weekend to a retreat where we could engage in visioning to set priorities.

A Friend suggested that we have survived for 300 years as a Yearly Meeting by being able to set priorities. We have done this for a long time. But now, how can we envision the process that we feel comfortable with in the present time?

A Friend suggested that the voices of Interim Meeting are the voices of God. This seems like a gathering together like a marriage, to bring together Monthly Meetings, Yearly Meeting, and Interim Meeting. An advisory body could bring questions to us. Then Interim Meeting could set priorities.

A Friend asked what kind of information would be most helpful in setting priorities. Could it be that with fewer resources on one level, and higher expectations on the other, perhaps there is a "phase change", to borrow an economic term? In his Monthly Meeting, financial contributions are down, while attendance is up, number of new members is up, and participation in programs is up. We need to determine what the new opportunities are, and what the new set of resources are, in the broadest terms, at the Monthly Meeting level and throughout the Yearly Meeting.

A Friend offered that older Friends come across as being very centered. The process we are now engaged in as a Yearly Meeting feels like we are in a birthing process, and at the difficult "transition" phase. The is the most intense, but can also be the shortest. The Friend suggested that everything is cool, and that we will be o.k.

A Friend raised up the question of how Friends have accomplished so much over the years. He suggested that the Quaker decision-making process is empowering.

Howard Cell, clerk of the Peace and Concerns Standing Committee, expressed two concerns. One is that we have an immediate need to provide priorities for Standing Committees as well as staff for right now. Secondly, that we need to set priorities for them for the coming year as well. In response, the clerk offered proposals and Interim Meeting took the following actions:

1. Friends approved requesting the group evaluating the Yearly Meeting structure to suggest some sort of advisory group for Interim Meeting. Rather than at a set time, the proposal should come back to Interim Meeting as way opens. This advisory group could work out the nitty-gritty problems that come up day after day, and bring recommendations to Interim Meeting.

2. Friends approved encouraging the Administrative Group, (which includes the General Secretary, the staff directors, the clerks of Yearly Meeting, Interim Meeting, Financial Stewardship, and the Standing Committees), to bring to Interim Meeting the hard questions.

3. Friends approved to take effect immediately, to continue until they are replaced, and to be reviewed in the summer of 2003, the priorities present in the General Secretary's End of Year Report on page 7:

Three Programmatic Foci:
(1) Creating more visible and more hospitable Meeting communities
(2) Supporting religious education for children and adults
(3) Enabling community services and witness that expresses what is best
in our faith

Friends also approved that Thom and the staff can say "no" with a clear conscience to things are asked to do that are outside supporting these areas.

Friends also minuted the need to be open to leadings that arise which may lead us beyond these priorities, and that Yearly Meeting in session may add to it or change this set of priorities. This is a living document for which we need to keep the discernment process alive.

A Friend offered that the priorities adopted tonight are a place holder, but they dont move us. We need ones that we can go back to and be involved in. We need to go back to visioning to seek leadings and have ways open for the work of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, and then we would be able to thrive, as the General Secretary's End of Year Report suggested.

The clerk asked who can take on the work of visioning for an organization of 11,000 members. She reminded us that in September we will have other business than the consideration of this question, and will not be able to devote nearly all of that meeting to this one question as we have tonight.

A Friend noted that our level of listening is very high tonight. We have been very disciplined in our work this evening. We have talked in the past about how well Representative Meeting functioned. But tonight we have shown that we can also be disciplined.

The clerk then asked if Friends were ready to approve spending the rest of the summer devoting time to thought and prayer about how we can best envision priorities for Philadelphia Yearly Meeting on an ongoing basis, and to revisit this matter at the September Interim Meeting. Friends approved.

Minute # 4. Ramallah update

Thom Jeavons provided a written update on the project to repair the Ramallah Friends Meetinghouse and to do further work to aid peace in Israel and Palestine. Pictures of the Ramallah Friends Meetinghouse, showing the need for repairs, were also available for viewing. Friends asked that they also be posted on the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting web site, at www.pym.org.

Jean Zaru has been able to return home to Ramallah last month, after a difficult journey. She found that restrictive curfews still are in place in Ramallah, and the situation does not show signs of improving. Jean was able to return with an International Quaker Working Party that traveled throughout the Middle East, Israel, and Palestine seeking information and hoping to find new avenues towards peace and justice in the region. This group, initiated by the American Friends Service Committee, had fourteen members from the U.S., Canada, South Africa, and Palestine. A report from the group puts forth an urgent appeal to everyone inside and outside the Quaker community to raise awareness of the deepening crisis in the Middle East. The report asks for an urgent international response to secure a final status agreement between Israelis and Palestinians based on all relevant UN resolutions and international law. The report concludes:

Because we believe that there is that of God in every one, we call on Quakers and others to work energetically and nonviolently for a solution based on the equal worth and dignity of each person, and on the power of love, forgiveness, moral imagination, and generosity of spirit to find a way to resolve even those conflicts which may appear intractable.

Minute # 5. Clerk's business

Friends joined in a minute of appreciation for Marty Smith. Marty, who has so ably supported Religious Education through service on the staff of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, is leaving for other employment She will be missed throughout the Yearly Meeting.

Friends also joined in a minute of appreciation to Keith Ragone (Woodstown), for his creation of the Peace is the Way banners. These hang outside Friends Center in Philadelphia, and have been distributed throughout the Yearly Meeting as posters. Keith is a graphic designer, and he donated his highly effective work to Philadelphia Yearly Meeting.

Ben Waxman, representing the American Friends Service Committee, was present to ask the endorsement of Interim Meeting for an Interfaith Service for Peace and Justice, to be held in Philadelphia on September 11. An Interfaith Gathering will be at the Arch Street Meetinghouse from 5:30 until 7:30 p.m. Then from 7:30 until 9 p.m. a candlelight procession will move to Love Park at 17th Street and JFK Blvd. Religious sponsors already include the American Muslim Society of the Tristate Region, the Arch Street Friends Meeting, the Africana Islamic Institute Dar al Salaam, the Brandywine Peace Community, the Jewish Mobilization for a Just Peace, the Medical Mission Sisters, the Foundation for Islamic Education, and Nuestro Salvador / Our Savior Lutheran Church. Friends approved that Philadelphia Yearly Meeting would also be a sponsor of the event. Ben encouraged interested persons to contact him for further information. His phone number is 215-241-7003, and his email is bwaxman@afsc.org.

Minute # 6. Announcements and Adjournment.

Friends were reminded of the upcoming full day program on outreach being sponsored by the Support and Outreach Standing Committee, "Doing Outreach: A Conference on Helping Others Find the Gift of Quakerism". This will be held at the Arch Street Meetinghouse on September 14, and is open to all within the Yearly Meeting. Friends from the Midlothian Monthly Meeting in Virginia will make a presentation on their remarkable experience with growth. The Making New Friends Project and the Meeting Development Support Fund, both from our own Yearly Meeting, will present a program overview and update on outreach initiatives and resources within Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. A number of workshops will be presented, including Becoming Visible, Jump Starting Your First Day School, Outreach through Inreach, and Giving Life to the Quarter.

Friends settled into worship and adjourned near the hour of 9:45 p.m. We shall meet again, God willing, on 26 September 2002.

Chris Mahon, Clerk
Susan White, Recording Clerk

Copyright © 2000, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting

Last modified: 2/1/03 1:46 PM