General Secretary’s Report
June 27, 2002

An Addendum to May’s Report: Some Examples of Hard but Promising Choices

In the aftermath of last month’s discussion of my year-end report to Interim Meeting a number of members asked me to give more specific examples of:

1- What kinds of opportunities are being lost (in my view, obviously) because of PYM’s lack of clear priorities and goals; and

2- What would the implications be in concrete terms – i.e., what things we might give up, or leave undone – if our plans and actions as a religious, nonprofit organization were guided by clear priorities and goals.

These seem reasonable requests. I tried to offer some examples in my May report, but am glad to try to offer more helpful ones.

My only hesitation in doing so comes from the worry that people will focus on the merit (or lack thereof) of the specific examples given, and will miss the larger principles the examples are meant to illuminate. Depending on the goals and priorities we choose, the particular effects could be very different than what I will describe in the examples I can give here. However, the most important outcome – i.e., that we would use our resources in more concentrated and strategic ways to build a more effective and exciting organization that better engages Friends’ energies and support and does more good in the world than we do now – would still hold.

So with that caveat let me offer at least one example in each of the categories above in hopes of making more concrete the kinds of results we might see from establishing clear priorities. And in doing so, let me say again we are talking here about PYM first as a working organization – as a religious corporation, if you will – not first as a community of faith, even though it is that too.

Opportunities Lost: Let us assume the basic purpose for PYM, and so our first priority as an organization, is as stated in our Yearly Meeting minutes of 1996. That is “to serve God by supporting the collective spiritual journey of our Meetings and members.” Let us assume next that following from that we should have a clear goal of providing those services most effective in helping Meetings that wish to grow in spiritual depth, visible witness and/or numbers of active participants do just that. Given this, it appears to me we have lost – or at least have not yet seized – at least three recent opportunities to fulfill better that purpose.

• More fully supporting the “Deepening and Strengthening” project — I have heard testimony from a significant number of our members representing a small but significant number of our Meetings that have been touched by this project about how powerful its positive effects have been. The potential benefits of the work of this project with Meetings that want to be stronger seem remarkable. Yet this project has certainly been somewhat limited in its scope and operations by a lack of resources. It draws virtually no money from our general fund, has minimal staff support, and operates “on a shoestring” because there seemed to be no way to provide it funding without cutting something else.

I wonder what might be happening now, or could yet happen, if PYM decided that this effort, which shows so much promise for “supporting the collective spiritual journey of our Meetings and members,” were given the kind of support it would merit as a project directed to fulfilling PYM’s “first purpose and priority”?

• Widening the Availability of the Spiritual Formation Program — A very similar story can be told – and question asked – about the Spiritual Formation Program in PYM. This is directed first to individuals rather than Meetings, but operates in particular Meetings or regional clusters of Meetings. It too has been spoken of by those who participate as greatly encouraging and deepening them in their faith and practice; and in the Meetings where those participants attend others speak as well about the very positive effects on these Meetings.

Yet most of PYM’s members have not been able to participate, many have not even known of it, because it too operates with minimal YM support and funding. Why? Again because it would mean reducing or cutting other programs or services. Some of those other things that would need to be let go might not be nearly as important to our central purpose as a Yearly Meeting. However, someone needs to make those decisions in terms of allocation of resources; and no group seems willing or able to do that. This is no surprise, though, absent agreed upon priorities that help us say what is more or less important at this point in time.

• Expanding the Number and Work of Regional Staff — If we really want to support the growth of Meetings in numbers and in depth, there is good evidence that having regional staff available to them can make a significant difference. Many have observed that Meetings in those Quarters so served seem stronger and more active. A recent external evaluation of PYM’s outreach projects with Monthly Meetings indicates they are more likely to succeed with support like that regional staff offer. And, last but not least, having more regional programs and support was another clearly stated goal of our reorganization in 1996.

So why do we not have more? In part, because many of the Quarters without staff have not figured out how or if they want to support and utilize such staff. But also in large part, because the Yearly Meeting has not committed additional resources to employing regional staff and supporting regional programs. Again, those resources are currently tied up in other projects or services. Again we need to ask, are the benefits of those other projects and services as important as the benefits we might realize from a reassignment of those resources?

Hard but Promising Choices: So this all begs the question, “Where could we find the resources to support the kinds of potentially very important and very beneficial projects just described?” Only two options are apparent. PYM members and Meetings could give more money to PYM to pay for this work. Or, we could not do some other things so we might do these things which – in a framework of clear priorities and goals – we might deem more important.

• In terms of the first option, I can only observe that so far our members and Meetings show little inclination to give significantly more to expand Yearly Meeting services.

Perhaps that is our fault. Perhaps we are not asking the right way. Or perhaps PYM is not doing things which Friends see and experience as really making a difference in their lives and the lives of their Meetings. Possibly both statements are true. Maybe neither one is.

But I believe it is certainly true that so long as PYM is trying to be all things to all people we are not going to do anything that is truly important to large numbers of our members and Meetings well enough to convince them of the value of this organization and to compete successfully for their support. Furthermore, absent clear goals and priorities I believe that trying to describe and demonstrate the value of what we do succinctly and compellingly is all but impossible.

• So what about the second option? Are we putting our resources to uses right now that really do not serve our primary purposes?

Obviously this depends on how we define those purposes. For sake of argument, let us again assume (as we did above) that the purposes are (or should be) as described in our documents from the time of reorganization and PYM minutes of 1996. If we took this seriously, this might lead us to consider radically different questions and options. Let me offer just one, again for the purposes of illuminating the dynamics and choices.

If the members and Meetings whose collective spiritual journey we are supposed to support are spread widely over the Delaware valley, and even more so over a four state area, then why do we own, directly or indirectly, and pay for the maintenance of, three pieces of real estate in the center of Philadelphia? How are our members served by all this, and at what costs?

Now clearly an organization this size has to have office facilities somewhere. If we want to function well, they should be good facilities with good equipment. Still, we hold a large equity stake in Friends Center, and own Arch Street meetinghouse, and own a rowhouse in West Philadelphia for the Workcamp program.

Focus for a minute on Arch Street. We tie up four-and-a-half staff positions, that is 10% of our staff, and lose between $60,000 and $100,000 a year operating Arch Street meetinghouse. (And that is without making the kind of investment we really need to in long-term maintenance to properly care fit this building.) This is a huge commitment of our resources. If freed up, these resources could provide the programmatic and staff support to help us seize several of the opportunities that were mentioned before (or others) to serve our Meetings better.

For these costs we get an historic building, which we fully utilize for meeting space only rarely; and which could be a great tool for offering education about Quakerism to non-Quakers visiting the area, but which very rarely actually gets us new members. (Moreover, to make the building a truly effective tool for (even) this kind of outreach – which it is not now – would require a very large investment of new funds.) In addition, the building provides a home to one Monthly Meeting, which pays a nominal contribution to use the space. We also operate it as a conference center in an effort to recoup some expenses, but lose money nonetheless; and again would need to make major investments and changes to have any hope of covering our costs.

Now, let’s ask an “unthinkable question.” What if we shut down or even sold Arch Street meetinghouse, and freed all those resources to do the work we could do to better support all of our Meetings? While we are at it, maybe it is time to take a long, hard look at why we are still in the Workcamp business; or if we need to own property to operate such a program. What if we made the investment to greatly improve Arch Street, moved our offices there, sold our stake in Friends Center; and so again (possibly) freed up significant resources for work we could all agree is truly important and live-giving to the future of our Meetings and members, and so to a stronger Quaker witness in the world?

I love Arch Street meetinghouse. I know what a wonderful history our Workcamp program has had. I understand the original vision behind Friends Center. But I wonder: “Are we always obligated to keep or continue our stake in buildings we have inherited, even when they drain our resources and may not serve our present needs well? Are we obligated to continue a program because it has had an honorable history, and is dear to the hearts of a small number, even if it engages the energies of very few of our members now? Looking at the costs versus the benefits of holding these properties makes me wonder: “When and how and in what context can we begin to ask some harder but more promising questions about how we might use our resources to build our future, rather than just to honor our past? And what key commitments or principles can we agree should guide our choices?”

Conclusion — Let me say again that the point of these examples is to highlight what is being lost, in very concrete terms, and what might be gained, by clarifying our purposes, setting some clear goals, and making some serious choices. But to do all that we must find a way to agree on some overarching priorities and principles to guide our work as an organization; and establish a mechanism to make those decisions, evaluate our work, and allocate our resources strategically to meet our priorities on an ongoing basis. Additionally, as I noted before, if the priorities and principles we would articulate now were different that those we seem to have agreed to in 1996, then the examples of what we would choose to do – and not to do – might be very different, too.

Last of all, let me note again that some of these choices are being made everyday by me and other members of the staff, in the absence of overarching priorities, because we have to make these choices. I personally am asked virtually every week by some group, Meeting or member to take on some additional task. It may be as simple as going to one meeting with some other group, or as complicated as shepherding a new project. I frequently have to say “no,” because I have no time for this new thing without giving up something else. (What economists call “opportunity costs.”)

How do I make those choices? As best I can, given what I can figure out about what the Yearly Meeting as a whole really wants and needs done, and what I understand our priorities to be in light of the kinds of earlier statements I’ve cited in this report. For example, just in the last few months I’ve refused several ecumenical engagements, including a request to be part of a “church leaders delegation” to the Middle East; declined to take on an effort to help start a new “Quaker display” on Independence Mall; had to turn down several speaking engagements; and been unable to attend a number of meetings of Working Groups and Committees. In addition I am often not able to be present to staff, make visits with individual members, or attend various occasions where Friends (or others) would like someone from PYM present. Finally some tasks or problems I should tend to as an administrator do not get tended because others seem more important.

Do I feel clear and good about all these choices? Often not, because while I make the best “read” of what PYM’s priorities are that I can, and I have some faith in my own judgment, I know others may see these questions differently, and be put off or offended at my inattention to their needs or causes. These Friends then sometimes get upset with the Yearly Meeting, and often with me. And frankly, absent clearly stated goals or priorities for our organization, I am sometimes not standing on firm ground in these choices.

So, finally, I hope having these kinds of specific examples of choices, opportunities and costs is helpful to forwarding this discussion. Finally, I can only say this is how it looks from where I sit. I am still glad to be PYM’s General Secretary, and hope that together we can build an organization that can be more effective in creating a brighter future for Quakerism in these parts. I would very much like to contribute to that.


Respectfully submitted,

Thomas H. Jeavons

Last modified: 7/6/02 12:50 PM