DKS
Transfer 2011
Posted on: 04/10/2011 06:03
The Transfer Committee has finished its work for 2011. Eleven candidates for ordered ministry applied for Transfer. Nineteen congregations had submitted applicaions for Settlement. All candidates who applied were transferred and are assured settlements. Calls have been made and it is now up to the individual conference Settlement Committees to effect settlements, which will lead to ordination or commissioning to diaconal ministry.
- Login or register to post comments
- Add new comment
Search
Comments
crazyheart
Do you have a number,DKS, of
Posted on: 04/10/2011 09:07
Do you have a number,DKS, of the number who didn't apply for transfer?
DKS
crazyheart wrote: Do you have
Posted on: 04/10/2011 13:09
Do you have a number,DKS, of the number who didn't apply for transfer?
Everyone of the 51 candidates is or will be transferred. Forty, however chose to seek their own call or appointment. They have until mid-May (depending on the conference) to secure that call or appointment.
Pinga
wow....that is a big split.
Posted on: 04/10/2011 13:16
wow....that is a big split.
crazyheart
wow nearly half. When will
Posted on: 04/10/2011 13:59
wow nearly half. When will you know if the others have been successful?
Pinga
Just saw the post of a
Posted on: 04/10/2011 15:34
Just saw the post of a wonderful woman who has accepted a position in a location that hasn't had a minister for 4 years. So thankful for the gifts that people give. At the same time, thankful for the church who facilitates such matches to the best of their ability.
DKS
Pinga wrote: wow....that is
Posted on: 04/10/2011 16:49
wow....that is a big split.
How so? It was expected. settlement is by the traditional process or by seeking call or appointment. It's now a choice.
DKS
Pinga wrote: Just saw the
Posted on: 04/10/2011 16:50
Just saw the post of a wonderful woman who has accepted a position in a location that hasn't had a minister for 4 years. So thankful for the gifts that people give. At the same time, thankful for the church who facilitates such matches to the best of their ability.
That's really interesting, because no conference Settlement Committees have met and no settlements effected. I hope she isn't disappointed.
DKS
crazyheart wrote: wow nearly
Posted on: 04/10/2011 16:51
wow nearly half. When will you know if the others have been successful?
That depends on the conference. In my conference, candidates have to have their calls and appointments in place by May 12.
Jim Kenney
22 years ago, over 100 people
Posted on: 04/10/2011 22:51
22 years ago, over 100 people were settled -- it seems the ordination/commissioning numbers are half of what they used to be. From the number of pastoral charges that applied for settlement, it seems that this number is less than a fifth of what it used to be. Interesting numbers
Pinga
DKS, in all processes, there
Posted on: 04/11/2011 10:35
DKS, in all processes, there are exceptions.
GordW
DKS wrote: Pinga wrote: Just
Posted on: 04/11/2011 11:11
Just saw the post of a wonderful woman who has accepted a position in a location that hasn't had a minister for 4 years. So thankful for the gifts that people give. At the same time, thankful for the church who facilitates such matches to the best of their ability.
That's really interesting, because no conference Settlement Committees have met and no settlements effected. I hope she isn't disappointed.
I read Pinga as describing someone who had chosen call not settlement. And so yes, most of those are in place, pending the approval of Settlement as are all calls.
DKS
GordW wrote: DKS wrote: Pinga
Posted on: 04/11/2011 14:10
Just saw the post of a wonderful woman who has accepted a position in a location that hasn't had a minister for 4 years. So thankful for the gifts that people give. At the same time, thankful for the church who facilitates such matches to the best of their ability.
That's really interesting, because no conference Settlement Committees have met and no settlements effected. I hope she isn't disappointed.
I read Pinga as describing someone who had chosen call not settlement. And so yes, most of those are in place, pending the approval of Settlement as are all calls.
That's right. All calls have to be approved by the presbytery and the Settlement Committee. BTW, all calls are settlements.
DKS
Pinga wrote: DKS, in all
Posted on: 04/11/2011 14:11
DKS, in all processes, there are exceptions.
What exceptions are you talking about? The current process is straightforward.
Pinga
It was settlement. Again,
Posted on: 04/11/2011 16:10
It was settlement. Again, there are always exceptions.
DKS
Pinga wrote: It was
Posted on: 04/11/2011 19:29
It was settlement. Again, there are always exceptions.
Not in the settlement process. What people think are exceptions are usially nothing more than things happening within the Manual process. I haven't seen any exceptions in the decade I've been involved in the process.
Pinga
sigh, dks, what I am stating
Posted on: 04/11/2011 20:25
sigh, dks, what I am stating is that there may be an exception to what you deem as "could not occur". Are you willing to accept that the information provided to may be correct or there may be a bit of grayness here? I'm willing to allow it, rather than stating that either person is definitely wrong.
i did ask for clarification, and got a response, and I don't wish to cause anyone any hardship, so, I am dropping out of this thread for at least 6 months....lol
GordW
I have to agree with DKS. No
Posted on: 04/11/2011 20:11
I have to agree with DKS. No settlement is official until the committee has met. Calls are different in that while the SC has to approve them the chances of them being deep sixed are pretty much negligible. Now in the transfer process a discussion along the lines of "we are thinking of transferring you to X Conference because we think that Y Pastoral Charge would be a good match. Can you agree to that?" may well have happened. But that does not a Settlement make. In fact, many times I think that SC chairs leave Transfer with an idea of where (or at least a short list) a ggod match for the candidates transferred to their conference may be.
Rev. Steven Davis
Theoretically I suppose a
Posted on: 04/11/2011 20:15
Theoretically I suppose a person could be transferred to a Conference where there's only one charge requesting settlement. That makes it pretty much a slam dunk, although technically Settlement Committee does still have to approve it.
Calls are handled differently. Yes, technically they're approved by the SC. I've never yet seen a special meeting of the Settlement Committee called to effect a Settlement that's effective, say February 1 after a call is issued on, say, October 1. Generally the paperwork just goes to the Secretary of the SC, who signs it and a Warrant to Covenant is issued.
DKS
Pinga wrote: sigh, dks, what
Posted on: 04/11/2011 21:45
sigh, dks, what I am stating is that there may be an exception to what you deem as "could not occur". Are you willing to accept that the information provided to may be correct or there may be a bit of grayness here? I'm willing to allow it, rather than stating that either person is definitely wrong.
Given that I know for a fact that no Settlement Committee in any conference across the whole United Church has met, then no candidate has been settled. They may have had conversation with the Settlement Committee chairperson, but no one, anywhere has been settled.No exceptions. No grey areas. I was in the room this weekend when the dates of each conference Settlement Committee was shared. I'm on the Transfer Committee, for goodness sake.
If any candidate thinks they have been settled, then they are sadly mistaken. And they have, unfortunately, violated a confidentiality agreement which they were asked to keep. In this case, there are no exceptions and no shades of grey.
What I can't fathom is why candidates can't keep their mouths shut, especially when they were repeatedly asked to do so?
DKS
GordW wrote: I have to agree
Posted on: 04/11/2011 21:48
I have to agree with DKS. No settlement is official until the committee has met. Calls are different in that while the SC has to approve them the chances of them being deep sixed are pretty much negligible. Now in the transfer process a discussion along the lines of "we are thinking of transferring you to X Conference because we think that Y Pastoral Charge would be a good match. Can you agree to that?" may well have happened. But that does not a Settlement make. In fact, many times I think that SC chairs leave Transfer with an idea of where (or at least a short list) a ggod match for the candidates transferred to their conference may be.
That's about as far as it goes, yes. And yes, Chairs of Settlement Committees do have in mind what and who might work where and what might not as they leave Transfer Committee.
DKS
Rev. Steven Davis
Posted on: 04/11/2011 21:49
Theoretically I suppose a person could be transferred to a Conference where there's only one charge requesting settlement. That makes it pretty much a slam dunk, although technically Settlement Committee does still have to approve it.
That's correct. But not all pastoral charges seeking settlement are known or on the Vacancy List.
EZed
DKS wrote: "What I can't
Posted on: 04/11/2011 21:49
DKS wrote: "What I can't fathom is why candidates can't keep their mouths shut, especially when they were repeatedly asked to do so?"
EZ Answer: Proof of their fit for ministry -- can't keep their mouths shut.
femmemomma
Quote: DKS wrote: "What I
Posted on: 04/11/2011 22:23
DKS wrote: "What I can't fathom is why candidates can't keep their mouths shut, especially when they were repeatedly asked to do so?"
I think that for some people, there is a need to tell those around them where they are most likely going. I actually had never heard this until now, I feel like I've always known where people were going.
I can't imagine finding out in April what conference I was headed to but not being able to tell people until a few weeks before I move. We have friends and family where we live. We are parts of communities and support networks. If anyone was being transferred for any other job, once they found out they would most likely tell the people around them, why are we not able to do the same? (I may be missing the bigger picture here, in which case, please respectfully explain it to me, I'm open)
Anyways, really what I wanted to say was congratulations to everyone who is moving forward in their ministry..I am proud to have called some of you my fellow classmates and know that each of you will give your new churches a wealth of knowledge and Spirit..
RevMatt
When I attended the transfer
Posted on: 04/11/2011 22:43
When I attended the transfer meeting, we transferred the only Chinese speaking candidate to the the Conference containing the only Chinese language Congregation open that year.
Was that person's settlement official? No, but only the world's biggest idiots could have possibly not sent him to that Congregation.
Not surprisingly, there were some at the Transfer committee who objected to the automatic assumption that the student in question would go to the Congregation in question...
Rev. Steven Davis
My experience on Settlement
Posted on: 04/11/2011 22:45
My experience on Settlement Committees in 2 Conferences over a number of years is that the "problem" (such as it is) has increased greatly with social networking. As soon as some candidates speak to the Settlement Chair during the Transfer meeting whatever they get told goes out on Facebook or Twitter - even just what Conference they're assigned to after Round 1, regardless of the fact that the process is still very fluid at that point.
DKS
RevMatt wrote: When I
Posted on: 04/12/2011 06:26
When I attended the transfer meeting, we transferred the only Chinese speaking candidate to the the Conference containing the only Chinese language Congregation open that year.
Was that person's settlement official? No, but only the world's biggest idiots could have possibly not sent him to that Congregation.
Not surprisingly, there were some at the Transfer committee who objected to the automatic assumption that the student in question would go to the Congregation in question...
That is quite true. One could extrapolate a result from those circumstances. But the challenge in the Transfer Committee is that we have to continually check ourselves each and every time and respect the authority of the Conference and their settlement Committee. To do otherwise is to assume more authority in the situation than is given. And I can assure you that I have checked myself repeatedly.
DKS
Rev. Steven Davis wrote: My
Posted on: 04/12/2011 06:29
My experience on Settlement Committees in 2 Conferences over a number of years is that the "problem" (such as it is) has increased greatly with social networking. As soon as some candidates speak to the Settlement Chair during the Transfer meeting whatever they get told goes out on Facebook or Twitter - even just what Conference they're assigned to after Round 1, regardless of the fact that the process is still very fluid at that point.
That is quite right. Last year some confidences were seriously violated by candidates who got on social media before all calls were completed and started talking about where they were going, and it was just the end of the first round of calls! There are up to three rounds in all and, as you say, the situation can be very fluid up until the last minute.
DKS
femmemomma wrote: I can't
Posted on: 04/12/2011 06:35
I can't imagine finding out in April what conference I was headed to but not being able to tell people until a few weeks before I move. We have friends and family where we live. We are parts of communities and support networks. If anyone was being transferred for any other job, once they found out they would most likely tell the people around them, why are we not able to do the same? (I may be missing the bigger picture here, in which case, please respectfully explain it to me, I'm open)
Good point. But it's not reality. In other lines of work, where position decisions are made external to the person, there is often a lag or even a change in an assignment between initial conversation and final decision. This is true in the Canadain Forces, police services like the RCMP and the OPP and other similar lines of work.
In the United Church, there is a required three week delay between a call being offered and the call being approved by a congregation. You may not be able to imagine it, but it is how the United Church works. While the confidentiality becomes less in a call, it is, nonetheless, still essential. Once a call is approved by a congregation or a settlement effected, shout it from the roftops! But not before.
DKS
EZed wrote: DKS wrote: "What
Posted on: 04/12/2011 06:36
DKS wrote: "What I can't fathom is why candidates can't keep their mouths shut, especially when they were repeatedly asked to do so?"
EZ Answer: Proof of their fit for ministry -- can't keep their mouths shut.
There is some truth in that...
Pinga
ahem, so dks...what happens
Posted on: 04/12/2011 08:17
ahem, so dks...what happens if the congregation did approve it already?
DKS
Pinga wrote: ahem, so
Posted on: 04/12/2011 08:45
ahem, so dks...what happens if the congregation did approve it already?
Then that is a candidate seeking their own call, which you did not clearly identify in your original post. I'm talking about the action of transfer and then the Settlement Committee. Your insertion was topic drift. It's not an exceptional situation And all calls still must be approved by the Settlement Committee. It's not final until then.
Pinga
I am talking about
Posted on: 04/12/2011 08:52
I am talking about settlement.
Pinga
going away again....lol, i
Posted on: 04/12/2011 08:54
going away again....lol, i should just stick to my "i will wait 6 months and come back ot this thread"....pinga backs her head against the table.
GordW
No pinga if the congregation
Posted on: 04/12/2011 11:02
No pinga if the congregation is approving a person it is not a settlement. The congregation only votes on a call. If a congregation goes to Settlement they have a vote to do that, but then they do not have a vote to approve a person.
So what did the congregation approve? A person or going to settlement?
In terms of sharing info. My memory from 10 years ago is that once Transfer was complete we were free to share which Conference we wree going to. And then in many places the SC chair would connect with the candidates and talk about places, sometimes in specific detail. But since it was clear that nothing was final until it was final then you would be a fool to share anything wouldn't you? However some people may move from that initial info sharing into doing some research into those places--which becomes a fine line doesn't it?
MC jae
DKS wrote: The Transfer
Posted on: 04/12/2011 13:30
The Transfer Committee has finished its work for 2011. Eleven candidates for ordered ministry applied for Transfer. Nineteen congregations had submitted applicaions for Settlement. All candidates who applied were transferred and are assured settlements. Calls have been made and it is now up to the individual conference Settlement Committees to effect settlements, which will lead to ordination or commissioning to diaconal ministry.
martha
Hi~nagging note from the
Posted on: 04/14/2011 11:39
Hi~nagging note from the infrustructure lady: Aon Hewitt starts administration of the United Church's pension and benefits plans on July 1.
Don't forget this will affect processing benfits, etc. for new pastoral relationships!
*Please* look for May's Connex at this link for more details on what to expect!http://www.united-church.ca/communications/newsletters/connex
AND
Members, Treasurers and Pensioners: look for an envelope in mid-June with all contact information and process updates for working with The Benefits Centre, administered by Aon Hewitt.
carolla
DKS wrote: ... In the United
Posted on: 04/16/2011 17:46
... In the United Church, there is a required three week delay between a call being offered and the call being approved by a congregation. You may not be able to imagine it, but it is how the United Church works. ...
I'm curious DKS what the rationale is for this required three week delay between offer & approval by congregation.
As I'm reading through this thread, I'm struck with the multiple layers of bureaucracy that seem to be in play.
Panentheism
The delay is because the
Posted on: 04/16/2011 18:03
The delay is because the congregation must meet and the announcement must be made twice during or after the church service and then the meeting is usually the next sunday after the second announcement. I imagine the meeting could be any time after the second announcement - like the monday but convention suggests it must be on the next sunday
GordW
And in fact there is no
Posted on: 04/16/2011 20:27
And in fact there is no minimum 3 week delay. I have known more than one congregation who had interviews arranged and had started giving notice of Congregational meetings before hand so that they could have the meeting the SUnday after the interview. What they would have done if the interview had not gone the way the had expected I am not sure.....
DKS
GordW wrote: No pinga if the
Posted on: 04/16/2011 20:46
No pinga if the congregation is approving a person it is not a settlement. The congregation only votes on a call. If a congregation goes to Settlement they have a vote to do that, but then they do not have a vote to approve a person.
But all calls are settlements...
GordW
Yes DKS, technically they
Posted on: 04/16/2011 20:46
Yes DKS, technically they are. But that was not the point being made.
DKS
carolla wrote: DKS wrote: ...
Posted on: 04/16/2011 20:47
... In the United Church, there is a required three week delay between a call being offered and the call being approved by a congregation. You may not be able to imagine it, but it is how the United Church works. ...
I'm curious DKS what the rationale is for this required three week delay between offer & approval by congregation.
As I'm reading through this thread, I'm struck with the multiple layers of bureaucracy that seem to be in play.
The three week delay is called "notice". It's a legal concept, designed to give people due and fair warning that something significant is going to happen.
DKS
GordW wrote: And in fact
Posted on: 04/16/2011 20:49
And in fact there is no minimum 3 week delay. I have known more than one congregation who had interviews arranged and had started giving notice of Congregational meetings before hand so that they could have the meeting the SUnday after the interview. What they would have done if the interview had not gone the way the had expected I am not sure.....
There is just three Sundays worth of notices. That's nota delay, but the way we do it.
DKS
Panentheism wrote: The delay
Posted on: 04/16/2011 20:53
The delay is because the congregation must meet and the announcement must be made twice during or after the church service and then the meeting is usually the next sunday after the second announcement. I imagine the meeting could be any time after the second announcement - like the monday but convention suggests it must be on the next sunday
The Manual was changed in 2010 to make 2 Sundays notice but the meeting can't be held until the following day, Monday.
GordW
DKS wrote: carolla wrote: DKS
Posted on: 04/16/2011 20:57
... In the United Church, there is a required three week delay between a call being offered and the call being approved by a congregation. You may not be able to imagine it, but it is how the United Church works. ...
I'm curious DKS what the rationale is for this required three week delay between offer & approval by congregation.
As I'm reading through this thread, I'm struck with the multiple layers of bureaucracy that seem to be in play.
The three week delay is called "notice". It's a legal concept, designed to give people due and fair warning that something significant is going to happen.
And then there is the minimum 3 month noticed before teh relationship is ended (except in abnormal or exceptional circumstances). Even ir Presbytery terminates teh relationship for cause teh PAstoral Charge is (or can be?) responisible for 3 months of salary.
Pinga
GordW, In my life, I
Posted on: 04/16/2011 21:29
GordW,
In my life, I prebook meetings, knowing that a meeting will be required. Worst case is we cancel it, or reschedule If there is a possibility that we won't meet the first date, then I book two, or even three, and say, if we don't need them, they will be cancelled
so.....whomever prebooked their congregational meetings when they were setting the interview schedule is smart. They are looking at the overall leadtime and ensuring the organization doesn't result in unnecessary delays
One could, during a time of great change, just preschedule congregational meetings on the first Sunday of every month....to be used as required,
GordW
I agree pinga. THe danger of
Posted on: 04/16/2011 21:36
I agree pinga. THe danger of that approach though is that in this case the meeting is oftten named as being called to hear a report from the Joint Search Committee (in fact it may have to be called in that way, I can't remember) since really they are calling the meeting, not the Board. And in a gossip-rich atmosphere such as the church calling meetings "in case" can be asking for trouble. Also in a voluntary organization calling meetings and then cancelling them on a repeated basis may really cut down on attendance when it actually happens.
So while it makes eminent sense, it has to be done carefully
DKS
Pinga wrote: One could,
Posted on: 04/16/2011 21:42
One could, during a time of great change, just preschedule congregational meetings on the first Sunday of every month....to be used as required,
I have used that technique effectively in the past, especially during the sexuality debates of the 80's and 90's. The problem is that most congregational meetings are reserved for dealing with the most serious of issues and are not easily or lightly called. It heightens anxiety, in my experience. And the presbytery must be involved when the pastoral relationship is being discussed.