|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
PYM Nominating Committee Report • 9th Month 2001 to 6th Month 2002
submitted by Richard Ailes - Clerk
Nominating Committee gathered under the Spirit eight times for this reporting period. In that time the committee made 190 queries of Friends to serve on Standing Committees or Yearly Meeting external and affiliated organizations. 54 Friends who were asked to serve, accepted. For the same time period in 2000/2001, 184 queries were made to Friends, of which 39 accepted.
Nominating Committee is primarily concerned with providing for Friend’s service to the 6 Standing Committees that are the oversight bodies for the Yearly Meeting, so we consider statistics regarding Standing Committee turnover as significant. Since the new structure was implemented in the summer or 1997, 95 Friends have resigned from Standing Committee service or declined reappointment. For the period covering this report, 14 Friends resigned or declined reappointment. For the same time period in 2000/2001, 19 Friends resigned from or declined reappointment to Standing Committee service.
One positive statistic for this report is that of the 24 Friends up for renomination at this Yearly Meeting, 20 accepted reappointment. Last year only 10 of 21 acceptances for reappointment were brought forward. Another positive statistic to report is a 4 year decline in the number of Friends resigning or declining reappointment as indicated by the following table:
1999 2000 2001 2002 31 29 20 15
Nominating Committee views this declining rate of resignation and an increase in the acceptances of reappointment as evidence that the instability of Standing Committee membership is coming to an end. In the beginning we had concerns we were asking Friends to do impossible service that had neither the appropriate staff support nor the proper respect associated with the work. Now it looks like a normal maturation process is occurring. Nominating Committee has a better recruiting process in place, staff support is more forthcoming, Standing Committee job assignments are better understood, and the constituents which Standing Committees serve are more aware of their work.
This is not to say that we are entirely free of challenges with this Standing Committee experience, some of which have been noted in the reports of the Evaluation Working Group of Interim Meeting. But we now feel that strengthening the Standing Committees with a full compliment of committed and capable Friends is a very reachable goal and we look forward to another year of continued growth and stability for Standing Committee membership.
Nominating Committee continued work on a number of different concerns and processes throughout the year including the following:
1- The nominating process was refined, adapting it more to the needs of the Standing Committee structure. It was approved to offer some nominees a choice of Standing Committee assignments with the understanding that their skill sets would apply to any Standing Committee. Prospective nominees were also sent information packets on their Standing Committee of interest and were offered an opportunity to attend a Standing Committee meeting before they were asked to make a decision. Upon acceptance and approval, the new appointees received a standard orientation to service which had been approved by the Administrative Group.
2- The process for reappointment to Standing Committees which had been revised upon advice of the Administrative Group was put into practice. Names of those Friends whose terms of service were to end in the upcoming Yearly Meeting session were sent to Standing Committee clerks about 6 months in advance. This gave the committees time to work with members who might be having a difficult time doing the committee’s work. Upon getting feedback from Standing Committee clerks, the Nominating Committee then reviewed, in first month, those Friends up for reappointment and determined whom to ask to return. In one case where Nominating Committee chose not to renominate, an ad hoc committee was formed to meet with the Friend not renominated, to discuss that Friend’s concerns with Standing Committee work. This committee consisted of the clerk of Yearly Meeting, Nominating Committee, and the appropriate Standing Committee.
3- Nominating Committee began to handle increasing requests coming from Standing Committees regarding unfilled positions on critical Working Groups such as Chace and Bequests Funds, Personnel and Financial Services, Children and Youth at Yearly Meeting. There is a concern that the new PYM structure is not providing adequate means to find appropriate members for these groups.
4- In 6th month, 2001, Interim Meeting requested that Nominating Committee find 8 Friends to serve on a new Working Group to Evaluate the Structure of PYM. This committee would need to meet several times in the next 18 months in order to provide Yearly Meeting sessions in 2003 an evaluation of the current structure. Over a period of two Nominating Committee meetings last Fall, we successfully recruited for this committee, completing the list of appointments at Interim Meeting on 11/29/2001.
5- A 2nd survey of former Standing Committee members was conducted by mail in 12th month, 2001. The intent was to determine reasons why Friends left Standing Committee service. Response cards were sent out to 39 recipients of which 30 responded. The same survey had been sent 2 years earlier to some 50 Friends, 35 of whom responded. Interestingly the results of the 2nd survey were nearly identical to the first. Both sets of results indicated that Friends leave Standing Committee service more because of the “busyness” of their lives rather than being dissatisfied with the Standing Committee experience.
6- A dialog was established with the clerk of Nominating Committee for the George School Board about the needs of the board for a more flexible approach regarding PYM appointees. Out of that dialog it is hoped that the board will seek to revise its quota of PYM and non-PYM appointees.
One thing that has limited the amount of success we have had as a committee is our own difficulty in attracting members. PYM Nominating Committee membership levels are less than half of our full compliment. We, like the Standing Committees, suffer when very few Friends show up for our meetings. Unlike the Standing Committees, we rely on Quarterly Meetings for personnel. Nominating Committee members are appointed for 3 year terms only by the Quarterly Meetings. There is currently no representation on Nominating Committee from Haddonfield, Philadelphia, and Upper Susquehanna Quarters and several other Quarters are grossly under represented. The clerk assumes this is a reflection of the current weakness of many of our Quarterly Meetings or the Quarterly Meetings’ own Nominating Committees. Nominating Committee service is supported when the Quarters choose representatives who are knowledgeable about their Quarterly Meeting constituents or at least willing to attend their own Quarterly Meetings to familiarize themselves with that constituency.
Ending on a personal note I’d like to say how much I enjoy serving on Nominating Committee. I feel that I’ve allowed God to work through my particular skill set for the betterment of this Yearly Meeting and I’ve been rewarded. My life has been broadened and enriched by my experience working and meeting with the wonderful Friends on this committee. I see also God at work through the many Friends who are participating fully in the leadership of our Yearly Meeting because someone from the Nominating Committee cared enough about them to ask them to serve. Many of us on Nominating Committee come together not knowing one another and, for some, it is our first Yearly Meeting committee experience. Out of this disparate group comes the Yearly Meeting’s clerks, its oversight “boards”, its representatives to outside organizations. As Friends go about their daily business I hope you will remember these Friends who’ve been called to our leadership. They are a hard working and diverse group who tip their hats to no one except the spirit of God within themselves and their fellow Friends. Because they are Quakers they work together with a sense of community and not out of a sense of selfishness. I really do believe that God has set us upon this earth to demonstrate to others that there is a way of dealing with power and authority in an organization that focuses energy on the work that needs to be done by the community. I believe this communal spirit which we Friends constantly work with starts with a capable Nominating Committee. I ask that each of you remember this when you are at your Quarterly Meetings and you hear the request for service on PYM Nominating Committee.
Last modified: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 at 08:18 AM