 November/December 1999 (XXXVII 5) |
hose of you fortunate enough to be able to attend Residential Yearly Meeting at Allentown College in July had the opportunity to learn the results of the survey sent to Monthly and Quarterly Meetings this spring by PYM's Financial Stewardship Committee.
Setting priorities for the Yearly Meeting is the first step in formulating a budget for the period July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2001. (That's the budget year we'll be talking about next March at Yearly Meeting in Session.) Meetings were asked to rate 16 general areas of Yearly Meeting work paid for out of the contributions of members, telling us whether each area had a high, a middle, or a low priority for Friends.
Over 40% of Monthly Meetings responded to the survey and results were very consistent, i.e., overall groupings did not change from the first set of surveys received. Therefore, we believe that the results are reliable.
Three out of four Meetings felt that the programs of the Standing Committees of PYM are meeting the spiritual leadings of their Monthly Meeting.
The five areas consistently ranked as having a high priority for funding with discretionary dollars were as follows: religious education for children and youth, peace, education (schools), spiritual nurture, and outreach.
Ten areas received a middle priority rating: religious education for adults, support of members, prison and justice projects, regional YM projects, preserving Quaker heritage, family relations, contributions to Friends' agencies, aging, domestic and urban projects, and international projects. These areas received middle ratings plus some high and some low, reflecting what experience has shown to be true — that what some Friends feel should not be Yearly Meeting work, other Friends are passionate about.
The only area consistently to receive a low priority was contributions to non-Friends' agencies.
Over half the Meetings felt that PYM should increase its emphasis on Quarterly Meetings. A third of the Meetings wanted more PYM staff time spent in regions but half of the respondents just weren't sure. Of those who wanted a staff person in each Quarter (about one-third), most felt that partial funding by PYM would be appropriate.
We asked about the amount and clarity of the budget information received by Monthly Meetings over the past year. Two thirds of the Meetings said the amount was "just about right" and most of the rest said it was more than they needed or could digest. As for clarity, three-fourths of the Meetings felt information ranged from "so-so" to "clear" with a few saying it was very confusing or extremely clear.
Almost all Meetings felt that such a survey was an appropriate way for the Financial Stewardship Committee to collect information.
We asked whether the Yearly Meeting should move to a multi-year budget. Half the respondents were not sure or felt they lacked enough information. One quarter said yes, and one quarter said no.
One-third of Monthly Meetings responding said they would like to have a representative from the Financial Stewardship Committee visit their Meeting to discuss the budget. These visits are taking place this fall.
Last modified: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 at 08:18 AM