St. Luke's Episcopal Church Vestry Meeting Minutes 23 ... · T Moskalik: $1120 gutter repair...
Transcript of St. Luke's Episcopal Church Vestry Meeting Minutes 23 ... · T Moskalik: $1120 gutter repair...
St. Luke's Episcopal ChurchVestry Meeting Minutes
23 January 2017
Chaired by Chuck Larsen – serving as Warden
In attendance:
Chuck LarsenBrian MoskalikBert ReimanBarbara SolbrigDarren CooperTom MoskalikKathy ConnellyJeffery MartinakKevin GravesMike Harris
Meeting commenced at 19:01
1. Opening Prayer - Larsen
2. Apologies for absence: Jacobs
3. Approval of Minutes & Correspondence
Minutes from the 19 December 2016 Vestry Meeting were reviewed
Comments?
Reiman: noted misspelling of his name on page 3; no correction necessary
Adoption of the minutes moved by T Moskalik, seconded by Solbrig
Motion passed by voice vote
Correspondence:
none
4. Working Group UPDATE:
A. Buildings & Grounds – Asbestos Abatement, Gutter Repair
Larsen: asbestos abatement has been completed; clean bill of health
Two days work to complete the abatement
Not paid for completely; waiting for bill
T Moskalik: $1120 gutter repair proposal (west side shingled roof stairwell)
No vestry action needed; just mentioning for awareness
B. Finance – Stewardship
Finance Committee met last Tuesday
Cooper: draft 2017 Budget was created for discussion
Several assumptions:1. Rector starts 1 July 20172. Defer hiring Youth Dir until after rector is in place3. Staff compensation adjustments planned
Rector compensation: ECMN sets minimums for:1. Minimum salary with housing allowance2. Minimum amount of health insurance to subsidize (depending on marital status)
Note that Sparks had majority of medical coverage through Mayo Clinic
St. Luke's covered the difference
Current pledges: Larsen and Cooper continue to make phone calls
Discussion of the draft 2017 Budget line items:
Line 520: single vendor for snow/grounds services (combined lines)
Line 578: possible to grow youth numbers after hiring staff person
Line 610: no scheduled advertising at this time, but need to include just in case
Not planning to continue advertising with MPR
Line 647: reduced brunch costs to net of 2016
Line 14: audit costs increasing for 2017
Line 825: organist compensation based on current monthly rate
Line 830: education provided specifically in organist's contract
Staff numbers reflect planned compensation increase
Line 860: Faith Formation Director based on assumption starting 1 September
Line 841: staff health insurance costs experienced an increase
Rector expense based on assumption starting 1 July (six months)
Clergy Transition Expense: includes estimated costs
Remember that our transition priest had some time away in 2016
Search/Relocation cost: recommended from diocese
Travel, relocation will be largest costs
Consider cost-effective ways of managing the expenses during search process
Line 705: Diocesan Assessment 13% of operating income from 2015 Parochial Report (note: 2015 Report was submitted in Spring 2016)
Discussion of proposed deficit
Hoping additional pledge/plate income will be realized
T Moskalik: reflected on last year's proposed deficit; 2016 ended up being positive
Larsen: reminder that we didn't have full time rector for 2016
Noted that Ernie is willing to remain until new rector is in place
Larsen: any questions or concerns?
Graves: Faith Formation Group … youth programs declining in budget
Where is money for Vacation Bible School coming from?
From line item or different location?
Cooper: has never seen a line item for VBS
Graves, Harris: uncertain where the money came from in the past
Martinak: thinks it came from youth programs line
Graves: noted that some material was donated last year (e.g. snacks)
Growth in the program will likely increase the costs
Solbrig: no line item for Adult Forum program … how was this handled?
Cooper: believes printouts, supplies went under printing; discretionary funds perhaps?
Comfortable with doing an interim budget when new rector arrives
Reiman: commended work by the Finance Committee
Motion by Reiman to approve Proposed 2017 Budget; seconded by Harris
Motion passed by voice vote
C. Administration – Search Committee
Larsen: provided list of Search Committee members:
Casey Caldwell (Chairman)
Shanna Altrichter
Sue Butler
Mike Harris (Vestry)
Dan Hartman
Lynn Lutz
Linda Mansfield
Joanne Martin
Tom Moskalik (Vestry)
Susan McReynolds
Jane Reiman
Requested motion to approve the Search Committee roster
Moved by Cooper; seconded by Reiman
No further discussion; motion passed by voice vote
Also need to approve funds for search committee
Waiting for final report from MAP process
D. Evangelism / Incorporation
none
E. Communication
none
F. Hospitality
none
G. Social Activities
none
H. Faith Formation
none
I. Outreach
none
J. Pastoral Care
none
K. Worship
none
5. Focused Conversation: Elevator Project
Discussion led by Reiman
Rochester Area Foundation: Reiman asked whether funds would be available?
RAF response: no, cannot donate to a church
However, if any St. Luke's member has donated to RAF and wants to transfer funds to St.Luke's, that is an option to consider (depending on restrictions on the funds)
Otis Elevator might be able to make a charitable donation toward cost of elevator
ADA MN in St. Paul gives mini-grants which may be an opportunity
Cooper: recommended sharing Otis suggestion with the contractor (Benike)
Larsen: working this angle; seeking more details from Otis
Discussion regarding Capital Campaign for elevator and kitchen projects
Larsen: have received a couple of new donations and increases for the elevator project
Need either to restart campaign or start new campaign to raise remaining funds
Waiting longer = more difficult to get on the contractor's schedule
General discussion on how to move forward
Reiman: motion for Vestry approve to restart the Capital Campaign for completion of the elevator and kitchen projects, and to provide an updated goal of the Capital Campaign status at the 2017 Annual Meeting; elevator is first priority, kitchen is second priority
Motion seconded by T Moskalik
Discussion:
Reiman: Vestry should commit to contacting Benike and confirm that the elevatorconstruction is a go
General consensus: not comfortable with that decision just yet
Reiman: recommended that leadership/vestry make commitment to meet with Benike and discuss next steps
Larsen will be responsible for the updates at the annual meeting
Motion passed by voice vote
6. Other Business / Decisions
A) Larsen: why two annual meeting days in the past?
T Moskalik: offered explanation: was due to attempt to fit meeting into available time slot between the two Sunday services; needed two days to cover all material
Ernie offered his approval to move to a single meeting day
Solbrig: monitor turnout to see whether one service/one meeting is better attended
Larsen: will supply additional treats/goodies for the meeting
B) Solbrig: Diocese Vestry/Lay Leadership Resource Day (St. Christopher's, Roseville)
Scheduled for 4 Feb 2017
Some members attended last year; suggested sharing with leadership in St. Luke's
7. Concluding Prayer and Adjourn
Meeting concluded at 20:05
Special Vestry Meeting: 05 February 2017 AGENDA Chaired by Chuck Larsen – serving as Warden Attending: Bert Reiman Mike Harris Kathy Connoly Darren Cooper Brian Moskalik Tom Moskalik Meeting commenced after 10AM service
1. Election of Treasurer a. C. Larsen states that the Vestry needs to vote to in-state D. Cooper as the
new treasurer. T. Moskalik so moves. B. Solbrig seconds; the motion is carried by voice vote, none opposed.
2. Election of Vestry clerk a. C. Larsen states that the Vestry needs to vote to in-state S. Altrichter as the
new clerk for the Vestry. Motion is so moved and seconded. The motion is carried by voice vote, none opposed.
3. Vote on staff salary changes a. C. Larsen states that salary changes for office staff should be made
retroactive to Jan 1. This affects K. Gould, O. Quiñones and B. Bornholdt. Motion is so moved by T. Moskalik. B. Solbrig seconds; the motion is carried by voice vote, none opposed.
Meeting adjourns.
Vestry Meeting: 20 February 2017
AGENDA
Chaired by Chuck Larsen – serving as Warden
Attending:
Bert Reiman
Tom Moskalik
Mike Harris
Darren Cooper
Jeffery Martinak
Brian Moskalik
Barbara Solbrig
Meeting commenced at 19:01—opening prayer by Larsen
1. Apologies for absence: Kathy Connelly, Sharon Parham
2. Approval of Minutes & Correspondence
A. T. Moskalik moves to accept; B. Solbrig seconded. No discussion. Passes by voice
vote; none opposed.
3. Working Group UPDATE:
A. Buildings & Grounds – Elevator
i. C. Larsen: locks have been changed on outside doors and office doors. A
former organist had made copies of the keys and made a video of himself
playing the organ that was made within St Luke’s and we later received information that another event had been held here on Dec 26, 2016 when
no one else was here. The police were contacted and we were advised to
file a trespassing charge, along with a cease and desist for one year. The
organist wrote to the Diocese recently in complaint, even though he has
not worked here in over a year and did not have permission to use the
church. He had been making use of St Luke’s without permission and when no one was present.
ii. C. Larsen: We’ve been waiting to hear from the Diocese as to whether a proposal needs to be made before a standing committee for the sidewalk
question. It has been decided that we do not need to go before a standing
committee or get Diocese permission to sign agreements. We can move
forward. iii. Elevator project: see focused conversation
B. Administration – Ministry Portfolio and Summary Letter i. See focused conversation
C. Finance
i. None
D. Evangelism / Incorporation
i. None
E. Communication
i. None
F. Hospitality
i. None
G. Social Activities
i. None
H. Faith Formation
i. None
I. Outreach
i. B. Solbrig states the Outreach Committee will be putting out a Lenten
Outreach project about diversity and inclusivity. It may not be out by Ash
Wed, but it will be out soon after.
J. Pastoral Care
i. B. Solbrig states that Charlotte Clugston fell and broke her wrist and will
not be able to do her usual tasks at the church, so people will need to pick
up the slack.
K. Worship
i. None
4. A. Focused Conversation: Review Ministry Portfolio and Summary
Letter
x M. Harris explains the documents. The first document is a 2-page cover
letter. The other document is a template we received from the diocese and
includes a lot of information we collected during the MAP program as well
as additional brainstorming and ideas from the committee.
x An explanation is provided by Harris as to why the documents look slightly
different (Google doc vs template information). Each section of the
portfolio can only have 1200 characters, so we are limited in how much
space we have, which forces the committee to be concise.
x C. Larsen: Ernie has provided additional comments. The suggestions have
been provided in document form. It is a priest’s perspective on what
makes St Luke’s attractive. It will be disseminated to the search committee
as well.
x B. Reiman suggests to include that Rochester is the third largest city
behind Minneapolis and St Paul. As for DMC, make sure to note that
money invested is from the state gov’t and private entitites.
x D. Cooper notes that Rochester may no longer be among IBM’s larger
sites. It is large in size, but not numerous in employees. It is important for
a rector to understand that history of downward trending employment.
x B. Reiman suggests change the wording to “a large IBM site.” Reiman
suggests “amping up” Rochester would be a good idea and has provided
additional comments to M. Harris.
x D. Cooper asks for clarification on the night’s process with the rector
search documents; if the vestry does not approve, what happens next? T.
Moskalik states the search committee is acting on the Vestry’s behaf and
can move ahead without the Vestry’s vote, but have submitted documents
to the Vestry for input and suggestions.
x D. Cooper notes that’s good, because the Vestry shouldn’t be a gatekeeper
in this role and he doesn’t want to slow down the process.
x M. Harris offers to integrate comments from the Vestry this week and
circulate it amongst the search committee as soon as he has done so.
x D. Cooper asks to see the document in its correct form before it gets sent
out.
x B. Solbrig notes in the mission portfolio section regarding how we care for
the well-being of congregation that we do not have a Sunday Forum and
haven’t since Doug left, so it’s incorrect to include that. There have also
been suggestions about whether or not to change the Young Families
group name. Further discussion prompts that it may be worth leaving
Sunday Forum in that section as an expectation for the future since it is
missed by congregants.
x B. Reiman motions that the search committee be aware of the
Vestry’s ideas, but finalize and proceed. T. Moskalik seconds it.
Passes by voice vote. None opposed.
x M. Harris agrees with B. Reiman and asks for suggestions via email for
him to integrate.
x D. Cooper has a concern in the area of compensation for the future rector,
the origin of the currently listed number is unknown. Is that number
correct? Is it Ernie’s or is it Doug’s? The budget has outlined $61,500, but
that is just a guess. D. Cooper will call Karen Olson to make sure we have
the correct information. M. Harris notes that there is additional
information we are still waiting on from Karen.
x B. Reiman states we should also add in information about the capital
campaign with actual numbers and M. Harris agrees. D. Cooper suggests
the goal of $700,000 should be included. B. Reiman suggests we should
also include what has been pledged, pledged but not received, pledges in
arrears, etc. Also include that the annual meeting re-energized capital
campaign, but the incoming rector should have a sense of our progress.
The congregation would also be interested.
B. Focused Conversation: Elevator Project
x B. Moskalik passes around recent budget numbers. C. Larsen
explains each amount. M. Harris would like to know how much
we’ve already spent. C. Larsen explains that we are about $5000
in arrears yet. We are still confirming some pledges. B. Reiman
knows of some additional funds that he will discuss with C.
Larsen privately.
x D. Cooper would like to see the received gifts and commitments
and their total, total received payments, incoming pledges and
their total, etc. B. Reiman states what is important is that the
shortfall total is $44,000. We still need to raise $45,000 to
finish this project.
x M. Harris: for rector summary, we should have what we have
pledged, what’s been collected, and what we need, but doesn’t
think we need to include more in a summary letter.
x C. Larsen: I don’t think we need to wait on the part of $4500
that we are short for the elevator project, we should move
forward. The pledges do not include verbal pledges, only written
pledges. We want to get started so people will see progress and
so they will remember that there is still funding needed for the
kitchen.
x B. Reiman: it would be nice to know how much money was
raised since the annual meeting. We need to make clear that we
still have a shortfall and that we have some big contributions
that have come in, but we need to focus on the hard part of
raising the rest of the money. We still have a need.
x C. Larsen suggests we’ll get a meeting scheduled with Levi
Kaiser with Benike to get a construction start date. B. Reiman
suggests a talking point from the pulpit about this; general
agreement to wait until a construction date is agreed upon. He
also suggests we continue with the pledge cards in the bulletins
and wonders about the value of an additional mailing.
x D. Cooper suggests that the construction starting and keeping
congregants abreast of the progress and financial needs will
motivate for individual contributions. B. Solbrig agrees; without
construction actually starting is may be too abstract to motivate
congregant donors.
x D. Cooper questions if the kitchen project might necessitate
architectural consultations or contractors fees. B. Reiman
answers that the hypothetical plan thus far should not
necessitate that. D. Cooper reminds the group that we do need
to make sure we’ll be in code compliance for plumbing.
x C. Larsen states that eventually re-doing the kitchen will help
some with finances when it is more efficient and no longer
requires that we buy things like Styrofoam cups each week.
x B. Reiman: makes a movement to commit to contact
Benike and that the building permit be submitted
immediately to the city for the sidewalk agreement. D.
Cooper seconds. No further discussion. Voice vote
carries. No votes to oppose.
x C. Larsen reminds the Vestry that as soon as the project is ready
to go, the church will have a bill to pay with Otis Elevator for
40% of their payment. There is still a possibility that we could
get a charitable deduction from Otis, but we have yet to hear
about that.
5. Other Business / Decisions
A. C. Larsen asks for further business; hearing none, moves to pray.
6. Concluding Prayer and Adjourn
Meeting adjourns at 19:41pm.
Supplemental note: M. Harris would like additional comments from the Vestry regarding the
search portfolio by 5pm on Wednesday.
Vestry Meeting: 20 March 2017 AGENDA Bert Reiman Darren Cooper Barbara Solbrig Tom Moskalik Brian Moskalik Jane Jacobs Jeffery Martinak Chaired by Chuck Larsen – serving as Warden Meeting commenced at 18:59; opening prayer by C. Larsen.
1. Apologies for absence: Sharon Parham, Kathy Connelly, Mike Harris
2. Approval of Minutes & Correspondence
x Special meeting vestry notes. We can’t quite remember who seconded and moved, but we can say that each issue passed with a unanimous vote.
x Feb 20th vestry notes: D. Cooper notes that, per the conversation about the financial questions last time, a subsequent meeting did straighten everything out.
x T. Moskalik moves to accept both minutes. J. Jacobs seconds. No discussion. Passes by voice vote; none opposed.
3. Working Group UPDATE:
A. Buildings & Grounds – Kitchen Remodel, Cleaning Crew o C. Larsen Elevator project contract is signed. Ground will break soon—
within the next week or two. The kitchen project is still short about $9100, but RPU estimates that there will be some helpful rebates. B. Reiman would like some clarification of the funds we are still short. C. Larsen explains that Father Ernie will be willing to make that gourmet meal for June 4th, 2017. C. Larsen would like J. Reiman to spearhead kitchen model project since she has done so much of the work already. She will know what is most needed for the kitchen vis-à-vis do we need a commercial kitchen now? In the future? Then we can ask for bids based upon what we want.
o B. Reiman states that J. Reiman was planning on calling the architect on the elevator project to get some input. What is preferred is to come up with a good plan either from that architect or from someone she recommends, and then solicit bids in a similar fashion to what St. Luke’s did for earlier building projects like the elevator.
o C. Larsen would like to continue to reach out for funds as it means a higher quality kitchen with new utensils.
o C. Larsen also notes if we have higher quality utensils we will need to lock the kitchen door. B. Solbrig states that we should actually lock the cupboard doors instead, since there is often a need to be in the kitchen for other reasons. This is an issue that will be discussed again in the future.
o B. Solbrig ask how long after breaking ground for the elevator project, when will they be cutting the building? The hope is that cutting the building will not happen before, and thus interfere with, the rummage sale. C. Larsen does not think that the building cutting will occur prior to the rummage sale.
o B. Moskalik questions if the kitchen project will include the drinking fountains by the restrooms. D. Cooper suggests we might be able to use RPU funds or capital campaign funds if there is sufficient money. There will be more information to answer this question as the kitchen project bidding progresses.
B. Administration – Rector Search and Personnel Changes
o T. Moskalik: the job opening for a new rector has been live across the nation for two weeks and will close in another two weeks. The diocese will look through the applications; acceptable candidates will be sent to the search committee. Hopefully by this time next month interviews will begin; when the search committee will have a hiring recommendation for the vestry is unknown at this time. The wardens will offer the call when a hiring recommendation has been made and approved.
o D. Cooper would like to know how the search committee will evaluate the candidates; what is the process and how will the committee use the mission portfolio? T. Moskalik ansers that the committee will get additional tools from the diocese that will help and that committee meets again on 3/21/17.
o C. Larsen thanks the search committee for their work and notes that the St Luke’s website is much improved. There are a few kinks to work out, but it is being worked on.
Closed conversation regarding personnel changes that have occurred at St
Luke’s.
Open conversation resumes; see focused conversation.
o D. Cooper has a new admin task. The diocese requires us to review our by-laws to ensure compliance with the canons every 10 years. The last time we did this was in 2006. We need to review (we don’t have to modify) to make sure we are in compliance with the canons of the MN Episcopal diocese.
o D. Cooper says the easiest way to review is to have a priest look over our by-laws. He would like Father Ernie to review them, as well as the Vestry. The by-laws are on the website and can be reviewed by members at any time. D. Cooper has reviewed them and has read the canons and doesn’t see anything amiss, but proposes that at the next vestry meeting the group meets having read over that material. The Vestry can then state that the by-laws have been reviewed and date that review, in compliance with the diocese. D. Cooper has moved this; there is a consensus agreement to do this “homework.” The by-laws are available on St. Luke’s website and the canons are available on the ECMN website.
C. Finance o D. Cooper states in St. Luke’s by-laws, it is outlined that the
rector, senior warden and junior warden are responsible for the day to day operations of the church. The treasurer, in that group, along with another vestry member is responsible for the day to day financial decisions. In the past year, D. Cooper has served as the vestry member in that role, but since he is now the treasurer, he can no longer be that additional vestry member, so a new vestry member to serve in that group is required. There may be other vacancies that we should think about for various committees and working groups; this should be reviewed.
o B. Solbrig would be willing to serve in the vestry member role, at least until the next vestry meeting when the opportunity could be offered to other members of the vestry who are not present. This is acceptable to the present vestry members.
D. Evangelism / Incorporation i. None
E. Communication o C. Larsen was disappointed in the turnout for the Maryvale guitar
ensemble. The post about the ensemble was viewed widely on Facebook, but the actual concert turnout was still low. The communication for future concerts and publication of these events will need to be increased and enhanced in the future.
F. Hospitality i. None
G. Social Activities i. J. Martinak reminds the Vestry that there will be a gathering this coming
weekend at Darren and Elizabeth’s. It is “appetizer madness.” The date and time were given, but were unintentionally not recorded by the clerk. B. Solbrig states that Lenten potluck, which will also be held this weekend, has been fairly well attended this year thus far. The Lenten movie and potlucks are held on Sunday evenings.
H. Faith Formation i. None
I. Outreach o B. Solbrig notes that the rummage sale is coming up. R. Caldwell
will be organizing and is looking for volunteers. B. Moskalik would like advertising about this on Facebook and in other venues earlier than usual to try and increase the visibility. B. Moskalik is willing to make the Facebook posts if given the requisite information.
J. Pastoral Care i. None
K. Worship i. None
4. Focused Conversation: Cleaning Crew
o C. Larsen is looking into the cost of having a part time custodian for a new hire. The going rate needs to be determined. D. Cooper states that we will need to determine the process to hire a new custodian or outsource the cleaning function. St. Luke’s also doesn’t have a set policy for dealing with personnel issues. The vestry is legally and temporally obligated to deal with these personnel issues in an ethical manner. Previously Father Doug was relied upon to do this, but in the future the Vestry should be more involved. J. Jacobs says this is an opportunity to formalize and document what the expectations are for dealing with personnel issues so we have a known process in situations that may arise, such as poor performance, attendance, etc. Having those processes in place before a new rector is in place, as it applies to all employees of St Luke’s, would be optimal. As a faith community, it behooves St. Luke’s to perform this task fairly, ethically, and morally.
o D. Cooper has found an employee handbook through the Episcopal diocese.
o C. Larsen hopes to find a new custodian and start interviewing people for that position soon.
5. Other Business / Decisions
o C. Larsen asks for further business; hearing none, moves to pray.
6. Concluding Prayer and Adjourn
Meeting adjourns at 19:53.
Vestry Meeting: 17 April 2017 AGENDA Chaired by Chuck Larsen – serving as Warden In attendance: all members of the vestry
1. Opening Prayer: 18:59 by Sr. Warden C. Larsen 2. 3. Apologies for absence: None provided
4. Approval of Minutes & Correspondence
A. B. Solbrig suggests re-organization of previous minutes to separate those who are
present from the rest of the agenda. General agreement voiced by several committee members.
B. T. Moskalik moves to approve minutes. K. Connelly seconds. Passes by voice vote.
5. Working Group UPDATE:
A. Finance – Finance Committee Meeting o Solbrig is now a finance committee member in order to comply with
by-laws.
o January financial budget: pledges were much higher than the budget
expectations for the month. D. Cooper believes many people paid their
pledges all at once. In the March statement if you look at YTD for
income St. Luke’s is much farther ahead than anticipated because
January incoming funds were so high. M. Harris queries if this is a
usual situation; D. Cooper says no, usually people pledge and pay
before Dec. 31 for tax purposes. It is typical for pledges to come in
before the end of a calendar year, but we don’t usually see so many
pledges paid before Jan. 31.
o D. Cooper asked the committee to review the March statement at the
statement of activities section which compares same month actual and
last year actual. Pledges are up, the facilities cost is off a bit, a
columbarium niche was sold, and the plate offering is off a bit. St.
Luke’s pays on a line of credit with sales of columbarium niches.
o YTD actual vs YTD last year: St. Luke’s use of natural gas is up as we’re
still learning our new heating and cooling system. There were no
expense categories that stood out in comparison to last year. The other
thing worth mentioning in February is that salaries for staff were
increased retroactively and that was paid in February.
o J. Jacobs states that Director of Music C. Benson received a raise last
year with the understanding that there would be an increase in choirs;
she asks if we have we seen that increase. D. Cooper answers that the
handbell choir has been increased, there have been guest musicians
brought in and other additional music work has been done to warrant
the salary increase.
o D. Cooper reminds the committee that the city of Minneapolis has been
pushing a higher minimum per hour wage which can set the market for
employers in Rochester. If large portions of the state changes the
minimum wage to $15, St. Luke’s would probably need to increase the
pay for those staff members who have degrees and are currently being
paid at that rate. This is not something that is currently in effect, but is
worth monitoring for the future.
B. Administration – By-Laws, Fr. Ernie’s planned absence, Rector
Search Update o By-laws o By-laws; see focused conversation. o Fr. Ernie’s Planned Absence o C. Larsen states that Fr. Ernie and family will be taking a respite trip to
Europe (France and Spain) April 24th-May 10th. Fr. Steve M will serve until
May 7th, which will then be filled by Fr. Nick. This will be helpful for Fr.
Ernie in his and his family’s continuing grief. D. Cooper assures that this
absence is in accordance with Fr. Ernie’s contract that he can take this
time. It’s a complicated process, but he is in compliance with his contract.
o Fr. Ernie has agreed to stay after his trip until a new rector is chosen.
o Rector Search Update
o T. Moskalik: the dioecese closed the process for applications on Apr 6th;
the diocese will take 2 weeks to review. St. Luke’s will then receive from
the diocese those candidates that the bishop and transition officer feel are
worth considering.
o Following the receipt of names from the bishop, the search committee will
do video interviews with every suggested candidate and then in-person
interviews with the finalists. The search committee is gathering their
questions together and will be ready for the candidate names the diocese
shares with them when that happens.
o D. Cooper wants to know if there will be an opportunity for vestry
members to provide input. T. Moskalik answers that there will be no actual
time for that, but D. Cooper can provide his thoughts to T. Moskalik or
other search committee members. The search committee has been
entrusted with this task as a separate body from the vestry. The vestry will
be able to participate in an informal gathering during in-person
interviews.
o D. Cooper states that we need to prioritize growing membership and
wants there to be something in the process that will assess the rector’s
skills as a preacher. M. Harris answers D. Cooper’s concerns with
assurances that one of the questions he is interested in is growing the
church in the DMC context. There are also a number of questions focused
on preaching skills and the committee will be asking for video/audio/text
of a sermon for the first round of interviews.
o S. Parham asks if committee members will be traveling to view applicants
preaching in their current churches. T. Moskalik explains that committee
members will not be traveling to parishes to view the applicants in person
because it keeps costs down. M. Harris states that it’s hard to do
meaningful comparisons if each committee member is going to see only
one or two people.
o B. Solbrig adds that not every potential applicant would want their parish
to know that they are applying for other jobs. There are important
confidentiality issues that must be respected.
C. Building and Grounds – Looking for Sexton, Kitchen Remodel o Building o C. Larsen states that he is still looking for a sexton for St. Luke’s.
Interviews for this position have not been going well and temp
recommendation services have not worked out because the costs are quite
high. C. Larsen has consulted with cleaning crews and the
recommendation was a crew of two for 8 hours a week. Bringing in a crew
of two for a few hours 3x a week would be double what St. Luke’s had
previously been paying former sexton O. Quiñones. J. Jacobs recommends
ABC, but C. Larsen states there are additional staffing concerns since ABC
employees require staff supervision as well, which is an additional cost.
o C. Larsen spoke with the previous sexton, O. Quiñones, who states he does
not have hard feelings regarding his time at St. Luke’s. During the course
of his employment his responsibilities increased after Head Start left and
that was a difficult thing for him. He would prefer to continue working
more hours at his other place of employment and he does not have time to
continue working for St Luke’s, so his resignation will remain in effect.
o B. Solbrig did not think there was sufficient thanks given to O. Quiñones
at the end of his employment for his many years of service and the many
duties he fulfilled as an employee, volunteer, and member of the parish.
There have been rumors circulating in the congregation about the ending
circumstances of O. Quiñones’ employment, so B. Solbrig suggests it might
be a good thing to address O. Quiñones’ many years of service as a thanks
to him in the Lifelines in the Warden’s Corner.
o C. Larsen was glad to be able to connect with O. Quiñones recently and will
take B. Solbrig’s recommendation under advisement.
o Grounds and Kitchen Remodel
o C. Larsen stated that there is a proposal regarding what we need for
permits for the kitchen remodel. The architecture firm can streamline that
process for a fee which has been paid by someone and will not be billed to
the church. St. Luke’s should now have the engineering part taken care of
via the architecture firm which should give the church some updated
numbers for permits and other costs. The numbers St. Luke’s has been
currently using are 4 years old so updated numbers are important.
o B. Reiman states that the contractors will all be bidding on the design the
architecture firm comes up with, which will help when it comes time to
make a decision for the kitchen remodel.
o C. Larsen states that the church is still a little short financially in its ability
to pay for the kitchen remodel. The church does have a refund from RPU
but this has not been widely shared with the congregation as there is a fear
that this could dry up giving from the congregation. The extra funds are
currently sitting in the capital campaign fund with the intent to move them
to the capital improvement fund should there be a surplus.
o D. Cooper states that if the church raises enough money to not need that
$15K refund and we have a surplus, spending those funds can get difficult.
Raising money for a specific purpose means that money must be spent for
that purpose. The vestry was not clear in their communication that surplus
funds would be put in the capital improvement fund and that might
require another parish meeting and vote if the surplus funds are
substantial.
o C. Larsen states re: the kitchen remodel that St. Luke’s probably isn’t big
enough to warrant a commercial kitchen, although the costs to upgrade to
a commercial kitchen will be ascertained in case St. Luke’s does need it or
would need to upgrade in the future. Right now St. Luke’s does not have
the ability to fulfill commercial jobs such as regularly feeding a large
number of people.
o St. Luke’s will find out what it’s going to cost to get a commercial kitchen
because as B. Moskalik suggests, if the church had a commercial kitchen it
might get to do some of those commercial jobs. D. Cooper and B. Solbrig
stated that the church would need a dishwasher, stainless steel counters
and a hand washing station in order to be a functioning commercial
kitchen.
D. Evangelism / Incorporation o No updates to report
E. Communication o No updates to report
F. Hospitality o No updates to report
G. Social Activities o No updates to report
H. Faith Formation o M. Harris: we need a youth Sunday. M. Harris will consult with Fr. Ernie
regarding when that service should be held. D. Cooper recognizes scheduling this will be difficult.
I. Outreach o The rummage sale was successful.
J. Pastoral Care o B. Solbrig reports that a longtime parishioner, Carol Coe, passed away this
morning (Apr 17, 2017). K. Worship
o No updates to report
6. Focused Conversation: By-Laws
o D. Cooper states that every 10 years every church body in the diocese must
review their by-laws to make sure they are in compliance with the canons of
the Episcopal Church. Because of differences in state laws, there are a number
of variances across the Episcopal Church nationwide. MN’s laws give the
church a lot of latitude and St. Luke’s meets the basic by-laws. The last time it
was recorded that the church reviewed the by-laws for certain is in 2006;
additional reviews may or may not have been done in the past 10 years but it
hasn’t been recorded. All committee members and Fr. Ernie were asked to
review the by-laws prior to this vestry meeting. A new rector may want to
make changes in the by-laws in the future, but for right now D. Cooper does
not think there is a current need to change the by-laws.
o D. Cooper has modified St. Luke’s by-laws document to note that the by-laws
have now been reviewed as of Apr 17, 2017.
o Fr. Ernie has made a suggestion regarding communication but there is
general discussion among vestry members about not adopting the
recommended change that at this time. The current language regarding
communication doesn’t denote the technological changes made to the format
of the weekly newsletter. S. Parham states that we should not change the
language in the by-laws that deals with how by-law changes are to be made
since the language is currently broad enough to describe current newsletter
formats. D. Cooper agrees since that is also important for us to remain in legal
compliance with the state of MN; we currently are so there is no need to
change at this time because such a change would probably require a special
meeting and vote of the congregation.
o M. Harris has a question about a youth representative. We do not currently
have one because our called youth representative turned the call down as they
had other time constraints. M. Harris believes the way the language currently
reads in the by-laws shows we are obligated to have this representative. D.
Cooper disagrees and states that we are not obligated to have a representative
if no one is qualified to serve or if no one wants to serve. Since the church
made a call to a qualified youth representative and that call was rejected, the
church has fulfilled its by-law obligations.
o C. Larsen entertains a motion to change the review date to St.
Luke’s by-laws to April 17, 2017 as included in the document by D.
Cooper; K. Connolly so moves. M. Harris seconds. The motion
passes. A copy of the by-laws will be included in the minutes.
7. Other Business / Decisions
A. B. Moskalik enquires as to why the Lending Library is no longer up. It was tipped
over by someone during the winter. B. Solbrig states that the Lending Library will
be re-established soon. Concrete needs to be poured for the post to be re-seeded.
B. The construction firm has been by St. Lukes and has put out yellow marking tape
but that is all. They claim the church was closed when they stopped by. C. Larsen
is working with the firm so that they should be able to have the access they need.
B. Solbrig notes that the church may need to move plants out of the way of
construction and re-plant them if any of the potentially affected plants are
memorial plants. C. Larsen will contact office administrator K. Gould to check on
whether or not the plants are memorial plants.
8. Concluding Prayer and Adjourn; C Larsen adjourns with prayer at 19:48pm.
Vestry Meeting: 15 May 2017 AGENDA Chaired by Chuck Larsen – serving as Warden In attendance: Sharon Parham Tom Moskalik Brian Moskalik B. Reiman Barbara Solbrig Kathy Connelly Darren Cooper Mike Harris Jeffery Martinak
1. Opening Prayer: 19:01 by Sr. Warden C. Larsen
2. Apologies for absence: J. Jacobs
3. Approval of Minutes & Correspondence
A. T. Moskalik moves for approval of minutes; M. Harris seconds. No discussion. Passes by voice vote; none opposed.
4. Working Group UPDATE:
A. Buildings & Grounds
i. Elevator and kitchen project: see focused conversation ii. Custodian interviewing process: C. Larsen is still interviewing for a
custodian. Many interviews have happened. There are a potential candidate that he is still looking to meet with. He is concerned that potential candidates are overwhelmed by the size and scope of the building. If we don’t hire someone soon, we will be spending much more than anticipated to use Arnold’s Cleaning Company.
iii. Non-member use of the building: C. Larsen reports that an email from a John Marshall high school student was received asking to use the church for a fundraiser for Ronald McDonald house on May 26th-27th. C. Larsen does not think it’s a good idea due to the construction, exit closure, and our lack of supplies or readiness for such an event. D. Cooper is inclined to deny the request. T. Moskalik agrees that, due to construction, we should deny the request. M. Harris notes that we should find a way to say yes to some of these requests to be more of a part of the community. We should have a process in place. B. Solbrig
agrees and states that a commercial kitchen we can rent out means we could serve the community better. C. Larsen agrees that a commercial kitchen will help us reach out to the community, but that does mean a higher cost.
iv. Leaky kitchen roof: S. Parham wants to know if the leaky kitchen roof will be fixed. C. Larsen states that the roofers will be repairing it once they have some equipment they need.
v. St. Luke’s building access: D. Cooper: access to the facility right now is through the office, which has confidential information about the congregation, as well as equipment and a safe. Access to the facility by non-members and non-employees is a concern worth considering.
vi. Summer access hours: C. Larsen states that St. Luke’s vacation cycle where the office is closed on Fridays will start after Memorial Day weekend. The construction crew can get in and out as they need. Other groups who might need the church on Fridays will have to make arrangements to get in and out.
B. Finance – Stewardship i. Nothing to report
C. Administration – Search Committee i. T. Moskalik provides brief update on the progress of the rector search
and re-iterates the expected process. D. Evangelism / Incorporation
i. Nothing to report E. Communication
i. D. Cooper wants to know if St. Luke’s is done advertising with NPR. C. Larsen states that we are. St. Luke’s will continue to work with the Rochester Visitor magazine. S. Parham wants to know why St. Luke’s stopped advertising with NPR. D. Cooper states that there was not any notable gains from the money that St. Luke’s was spending with NPR, which was quite a lot.
F. Hospitality i. Nothing to report
G. Social Activities i. J. Martinak shares there was a gathering at Ted and Kara Schmidt’s
house last Friday for the Young Families group. H. Faith Formation
i. M. Harris solicits opinions on what should be done with Vacation Bible School. Should the theme be changed from Mega Sports Camp? There are a handful of committee members who aren’t fond of it and would like to see a change. A change may not happen this year, but may in the future. D. Cooper states that as long as the budget is followed, there shouldn’t be a need for the vestry to approve any changes. The work of
the Faith Formation committee is appreciated; the vestry will provide input as necessary.
ii. D. Cooper: change can be a good thing, and changing the theme is possible. Does the additional potential value of making a change outweigh the cost? D. Cooper doesn’t want a potential future rector wanting a change to influence the decision, it should be about what the committee wants. The main concern with Mega Sports Camp is that a minimum number of kids is needed, and St. Luke’s has difficulty meeting that threshold. D. Cooper wants to know if Fr. Ernie would be involved if he’s still around at that time? M. Harris will check.
I. Outreach i. B. Solbrig says that the people who helped with the rummage sale will
be having a potluck, so anyone who was part of the rummage sale can attend. Contact Robin Caldwell if interested.
J. Pastoral Care i. K. Connelly—numbers have fluctuated, but the team has done a great
job covering for each other. K. Worship
i. Nothing to report
5. Focused Conversation: Kitchen Remodel and Elevator Project A. Kitchen Remodel
i. B. Reiman states there will be another meeting this Thursday, May 18; the architects have submitted a new plan that J. Reiman will have to review. The meeting on Thursday will include some of that review. Other opinions by experts will be solicited. In the meantime, the project is moving forward. J. Reiman has learned that the public health department can also review plans and offer input into the necessity or lack thereof for a commercial kitchen.
ii. D. Cooper has extensive kitchen work experience and offers to look at the plans for the kitchen. He queries if the cost of the kitchen is close to what has been budgeted, but so far that is unknown. B. Reiman states that the architects and others will have to submit some estimates and bid.
iii. S. Parham wants to know if the new kitchen will try to remedy the fact that hot water takes a long time to arrive in the current kitchen. B. Reiman states that will be taken up with the architect since instantaneous hot water is a good idea in a kitchen. A solution to the problem is necessary since the church has run out of hot water in the past. D. Cooper reminds the vestry that food inspectors do check hot water pressure and temperature, so a commercial kitchen would bring about inspections.
B. Elevator Project i. C. Larsen states that for the elevator project, the lower level entrance
will probably be closed for the duration of the project due to the nature of what the construction requires. The helical coils are in, the foundation of the building is fully supported. Another concrete pad will be poured for the substructure and additional helical coils, so there will be a lot of concrete work happening soon. The church also had to go with natural stone rather than artificial stone due to lack of materials, which is more expensive than expected (+$1800), but is not so expensive as to be a major budgetary concern. The proposed completion date is mid-August 2017.
ii. D. Cooper would like to know if there are events on the church calendar that would require more planning and preparation due to the closed exit? M. Harris notes that Vacation Bible School may be affected by the exit closure. C. Larsen states that there will be a weekly meeting with builders starting this week and will ask. M. Harris says that VBS dates will be chosen by the Faith Formation team this week, so he will email his questions to C. Larsen following the vestry meeting.
6. Other Business / Decisions A. Nothing to report
7. Concluding Prayer and Adjourn
i. C. Larsen closes at 19:33 with the Lord’s Prayer; the vestry members join in prayer.
Vestry Meeting: 19 June 2017 AGENDA Chaired by Chuck Larsen – serving as Warden In attendance: Barbara Solbrig Kathy Connelly Bert Reiman Brian Moskalik Jane Jacobs Darren Cooper Tom Moskalik Mike Harris
1. Opening Prayer: 19:02 by Sr. Warden C. Larsen
2. Apologies for absence: S. Parham
3. Approval of Minutes & Correspondence
A. C.Larsen motions to accept. B. Solbrig moves, B. Reiman seconds. Passes by voice vote. None opposed.
4. Working Group UPDATE:
A. Outreach – M.Harris, Cub Scouts
i. See focused conversation B. Administration – New Sexton
i. C. Larsen announces that St. Luke’s has hired a new sexton, Anton A. Anton is familiar with St. Luke’s as he is a member of the handbell choir. Has done a great job so far. Anton will work 15 hours a week and will get through the whole building in a week’s time. He will be paid $15/hour. He has some compliance tests to take, such as drug test, background check, safe church testing, etc. to finalize his employment.
ii. C. Larsen brings up another administration concern. When the Weekly Lifelines go out, there’s not supposed to be last names. However, it seems the Lifelines has no standardization regarding this, it is a “hodge podge.” Some sections of the Lifelines mention full names, such as birthdays and those responsible for acolyte service each week. Other secitons follow the first name, last initial model. Others may use first initial, then last name. It’s not at all standard and should be. C. Larsen states that it’s hard to know why the no-last-name rule exists. To his knowledge, it was implemented by a previous parishioner, but he does not know why. B. Solbrig explains that it is for privacy concerns, but
the rule is not being enforced. D. Cooper states that we need to have a consistent policy. B. Solbrig is concerned about the Lifelines being on the Internet, public, and available forever, particularly when full names are sometimes used. She states that we need permission for the Lifelines to be available in this way. B. Solbrig states that some names might have links to them and others might not. C. Larsen states that he has seen full names for birthdays, who is doing services, etc. But in C. Larsen’s Warden’s Corner, he has not used full names. B. Moskalik states that full names would be inadvisable for prayer concerns or prayers of the people for privacy reasons. C. Larsen says it’s confusing to say there’s a standard and then not to follow it. J. Jacobs suggests we could just keep tabs on the website updated and then cease including the Lifelines on the website because those concerned or those who need the Lifelines already receive it in other ways (mail, email, handout at church). The newsletter is for parishioners, the website is for the general public. These are two different audiences and should be treated differently. M. Harris responds that if the real concern is that people’s names are indexed and searchable, we could have the Lifelines available as pdfs, which is not searchable and therefore more private because it won’t be indexed by a search engine. There are lots of ways to do this.
iii. D. Cooper affirms that we need to address what the congregants actually want. D. Cooper has had his personal information such as telephone number, address, and email address posted in the Lifelines without his permission and found that to be upsetting. St. Luke’s needs to decide on a policy about how to protect parishioner’s privacy and then decide how to implement it. The default should be more privacy, rather than less. People with questions can always contact the church office. D. Cooper states that either the Vestry needs to formally decide on a policy or have a Communications committee decide on a policy and then present it to the Vestry. B. Solbrig agrees that St. Luke’s should default to more privacy for parishioners as much as possible. The policy should be that no one’s private information is shared, rather than current practice where some have information shared and others don’t. D. Cooper would like the Communications committee to research some policies, talk to the congregants about their wants regarding this matter, and then get back to the Vestry. In the interim, parishioners’ privacy should be protected. The Communications committee should examine also examine why some information, such as the acolyte schedule, was available in the Lifelines in the first place and decide if it still needs to fill this purpose considering that information can now be found elsewhere for those who need it.
C. Buildings & Grounds – B. Reiman, Kitchen i. B. Reiman states that J. Reiman has taken the lead in trying to plan the
kitchen remodel. In May 2017, she met with many people who have used the kitchen, are using the kitchen, etc. regarding what their needs are. At the time of those meetings, CRW had come up with tentative plans which were discussed in these meetings. The plans were critiqued, suggestions were made, and now CRW’s plans have been modified to reflect the input of those J. Reiman met with. For example, the island will no longer be all one height in order to accommodate those who need to site while working in the kitchen. There are many desired changes that have been prioritized. The most important is infrastructure; the St. Luke’s kitchen needs sufficient hot water in the kitchen, adequate electrical infrastructure, and adequate plumbing. This is the first priority. CRW has a mechanical engineer who will be studying that to determine what needs exist to make sure this priority is met. Their report on this has yet to be submitted.
ii. At this point, it is unknown how much money to meet these plans is needed as bids on the project have yet to be collected. The only “known” so far is how much money we have. As stated previously, the first priority is infrastructure. The second priority is a screen door for the kitchen. The third priority is a dishwasher line coming in through an unused door so that dishes can be fed into the kitchen from the fellowship hall (original to CRW’s earlier plans). The fourth priority is a new island and counters on either side of the existing stove. The fifth priority is new cupboards and countertops to maximize storage. With CRW’s plans, we should be able to store all our current kitchen possessions. The sixth priority is a handwashing sink at one end of the island, especially if we ever move towards a commercial kitchen will be necessary.
iii. CRW is going to seek bids from contractors who will start coming through here to make those bids in a couple weeks. CRW has suggested some finishes for the counters, islands, cupboards, etc. Contractors will bid on the various priorities. We have to move in a step-wise fashion until we know how our finances match up with the bids we will receive. M. Harris asks if there is a sense of a schedule. B. Reiman responds no, we don’t even have bids yet. M. Harris is concerned about a remodel that conflicts with VBS. B. Reiman feels it is unlikely that work will be happening that quickly, and therefore that conflict should not arise. D. Cooper reminds the Vestry that there are several events that will need to be scheduled around, such as Christmas. We also will need to see how we are matching up financially. B. Reiman explains this is why we have the priorities set the way we do so we can make changes step by step in a systematic approach as we can afford them. D. Cooper asks if there is a timeline for when the bids will come back? B. Reiman
answers that CRW will try to have the contractors come in in a couple weeks. They will be inviting contractors. B. Reiman feels that this is a better strategy than having St. Luke’s “rookies” try to solicit bids ourselves and C. Larsen concurs.
D. Finance – Stewardship E. Evangelism / Incorporation
i. No updates to report F. Communication
i. No updates to report G. Hospitality
i. No updates to report H. Social Activities
i. No updates to report I. Faith Formation
i. No updates to report J. Pastoral Care
i. No updates to report K. Worship
i. No updates to report
5. Focused Conversation: Cub Scout Program
A. M. Harris reports that the local Catholic churches have sponsored a number
of Boy Scout programs. The diocese of Winona has decided to conclude their
sponsorship. Several troops need a sponsor. M. Harris feels our facility
would be appropriate for this need and asks the Vestry their thoughts on
this. D. Cooper says that we cannot provide meeting space for a troop
without being their chartering organization. There would be some
paperwork and permissions that need to be filled out. M. Harris knows of
two packs (Cub Scouts), and that they are quite large. D. Cooper is familiar
with the pack. Due to his familiarity, he notes that there are several
challenges that should be considered, such as geography as well as some
other concerns. There are many troops that are currently searching for a
chartering organization, so St. Luke’s may choose to sponsor one or several
packs. D. Cooper is not opposed to chartering one or several troops. M.
Harris feels that this is something that is in line with our mission as a
church. D. Cooper reminds everyone that there are several liability issues to
keep in mind which informs why the Cub Scouts’ previous chartering
organization has decided to no longer do so. There are other options that
could be explored. M. Harris: wants to know what the next steps should be.
B. Reiman response that someone should check in with Game Haven first so
we know what the responsibilities are for chartering a pack or troop so that
is something we understand before moving forward. B. Solbrig notes that
the Vestry also needs to discuss how we can make the building secure so that
it can be used by other organizations. In this instance, a pack or troop would
have adult supervision, so the concern is less so but is still there. She also
does not think this is an appropriate topic for the Outreach committee and it
should be housed elsewhere. It doesn’t necessarily have to be under any
committee specifically. C. Larsen is in favor of going forward with this and
has previous experience with Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts. B. Reiman states
that there are scheduling issues to be aware of. J. Jacobs, D. Cooper, and B.
Solbrig all also have experience with Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts and agree
these scheduling issues can be difficult. J. Jacobs states that Game Haven
can tell us needed information about pack size, report on any concerns with
dysfunctional packs, etc. M. Harris agrees to reach out to Game Haven and
will follow up. D. Cooper states that we will need to be careful about space.
There are potentially many children who would need to meet at St. Luke’s if
the church decides to move forward as a sponsoring organization. M. Harris
wants to know how many functional rooms we actually have to
accommodate this need. He is sure the church has at least two rooms, with
up to four or more that could potentially work and the fellowship hall could
be used for pack meetings. D. Cooper says for Pack 110, as an example, pack
meetings number about 100 people, which is an allowable number in the
fellowship hall.
6. Other Business / Decisions
A. Search Committee: T. Moskalik states that the search committee has two candidates that we will be inviting to St. Luke’s in late July. The search committee is meeting tomorrow to further discuss the plans for those interview days. C. Larsen acknowledges this has been a large task for the search committee and feels that congregants were pleased to hear that progress was being made. B. Reiman notes that there may be a need to move a Vestry meeting to accommodate interviewing candidates, so this is something to keep in mind.
B. B. Reiman raises a question about the elevator project. It has been made apparent that some of the stained glass has been blocked. Are there any plans to light them? C. Larsen answers yes, there are plans using LED lights to do so. These plans were in place before construction started. B. Reiman states that this information should go in the Lifelines, as many congregants have his question.
C. D. Cooper states that Al Lichte will no longer chair the finance working group after this year, so we will need to find someone to fill that role. We may want to reach out to new members, or ask existing committee members if they are interested.
7. Concluding Prayer and Adjourn: C. Larsen adjourns by leading the Lord’s Prayer at
19:45.
Vestry Meeting: 17 July 2017 In attendance: Tom Moskalik Darren Cooper Kathy Connelly Barbara Solbrig Bert Reiman Brian Moskalik Jane Jacobs Mike Harris Sharon Parham AGENDA Chaired by Chuck Larsen – serving as Warden
1. Opening Prayer by C. Larsen at 19:00
2. Apologies for absence: J. Martinak
3. Approval of Minutes & Correspondence
T. Moskalik moves for approval; D. Cooper seconds. Passes by voice vote, none opposed.
4. Working Groups UPDATE:
A. Finance – Darren Cooper
i. D. Cooper states St. Luke’s is assessed every year for tax purposes and our 2018 assessment came in last week based upon 2016’s parochial report. This will reduce our total annual assessment by about $3600 because 2016 was a slower year with lower operating costs. The percentage St. Luke’s owes may rise in the future as there is an increase when the assessment is in excess of $300,000, which it was not in 2016. Our 2019 assessment will probably be higher and go back to that prior 13% since we’ll have higher operating costs this year, which is what the assessment will be based upon.
ii. D. Cooper continues by stating that the finance committee has not prepared an official report, but has several issues they wish to bring to the attention of the vestry. A handout of St. Luke’s financials were provided in advance to the vestry in anticipation of this meeting. The financial document shows that income is currently ahead of plan because facility usage is lower, plate
offerings have been OK, and pledges have been high but will probably taper off. Pledged income is a little lower than projected. St. Luke’s is fine for the summer, but summer is a slow time. Pre-paid pledges will roll in as the year progresses. On the expense side, the payroll is as expected. In terms of budgeted amount, our custodial costs will meet plan, but we will have to increase it next year. Clergy expense will be lower until we have a new priest, when it will then need to increase. General expenditures is much lower than anticipated.
iii. D. Cooper continues to the next section in the financials document and calls attention to the section on Building equipment/repair/maintenance: St. Luke’s energy expenses are much higher than budgeted for or anticipated. The energy costs much be watched. If we stay close to the current plan, the church will about meet its budget, but it’s something to watch for next year. The highest expense is electricity. St. Lukes’ natural gas bill is also higher than expected. Our water heater might be used by construction crew; they definitely use the church’s electricity at this time. The anticipated savings on the new HVAC system has not materialized as expected thus far. The most recent RPU bill seemed high. B. Reiman wants to know if we should speak to RPU. D. Cooper will register our concerns with them. J. Jacobs states it makes sense to tell RPU what we expected and what we have seen so far and ask if they know what is going on. If this continues, we will substantially go over our energy budget. B. Reiman suggests there may be a leak. This should be investigated. B. Reiman notes someone from St. Luke’s will be talking to Superior Mechanical, the company responsible for our equipment, on another matter but since St. Luke’s is the organization who pays the energy bills, it is the church’s responsibility to contact RPU, not Superior Maintenance. D. Cooper points out that the finance committee has copies of bills. If the church has a leak, that should be visible on the bill because usage is listed. If there is a large increase in usage, that would indicate a potential leak. This is the first step of an investigation into this matter. B. Reiman notes that where the construction happening may be near pipes, so checking for a leak is a good idea. Due to summer climate, larger bills are not surprising but these bills are much higher than expected.
B. Outreach – Mike Harris, Cub Scouts/Boy Scouts i. M. Harris gives an update regarding the Cub Scout packs and Boy
Scout troops from Holy Spirit who are currently in need of a new chartering organization. There are 4 troops/packs looking for “homes.” Harris checked in with Gamehaven and states we should
continue working with their leadership to gauge interest in the packs/troops using our facility with our members. If this were to proceed, St. Luke’s would work with Gamehaven to establish a charter if that’s what is decided. The troops/packs may have other options that include Assisi Heights, which may be the best option and would allow all orgs to stay together. Hosanna Lutheran is the second option and St. Luke’s is the third option. The next step in the process is that a group from the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts will take a tour on Wednesday of the church to gauge if the facility will work for them. M. Harris will facilitate the tour. The amount of time the pack would need the facility would vary. They often meet on Thursdays. B. Solbrig points out that this would conflict with choir practice. B. Reiman, as a choir member, speaks to the routine of the choir. The choir stays in the choir room usually, but may practice in the sanctuary at the end of practice. The pack would meet in the fellowship hall, so there shouldn’t be much overlap even if both groups were in St. Luke’s at the same time. M. Harris would like to know if there would be overlap with the 37th St Gold band that practices at St. Luke’s. C. Larsen answers that they usually practice on Mondays. M. Harris says a decision will be made shortly; if the pack chooses St. Luke’s, the paperwork will begin soon thereafter. B. Reiman notes that the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts are volunteer orgs that are not necessarily efficient and don’t always work well, so we should be aware that there is a potential downside if they meet here, although he is not against it. M. Harris answers yes, but reminds the vestry that the upside is that it makes our church more accessible to young families. B. Solbrig, offering up that she has experience with the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, states there are usually enough people involved who are efficient who can keep things in line. This would be for the pack and troop, so children of all ages are involved. S. Parham brings up that there should be some sort of tracking record. At a previous church, there was an issue with maintaining control of keys to the facility, so that is something to keep in mind if this goes forward at our church.
ii. C. Larsen: now is not the time for a vote since we don’t know yet if we’ll be chosen. If St. Luke’s is chosen, the vestry will vote on becoming a chartering organization for the pack and troops at that time.
C. Buildings & Grounds – Vandalism Update
i. C. Larsen reports that the bill from Service Master was just over $45,000. Everything is in order to submit to the insurance company. There is a $1000 deductible which we will ask Benike to
pay. As for who is responsible, the police are aware of a party that was happening in the neighborhood and the police will question known associates, but no major progress from them on catching the perpetrators. There continues to be an issue with the basketball courts at night. K. Gould has had to clean up a number of garbage items from the parking lot including today. Some of the garbage items are liquor bottles. B. Solbrig recommends posting a sign about the Rochester noise ordinance politely asking people to keep noise on the parking lot down. D. Cooper states that St. Luke’s also has a no trespass order so the police can run loud people off whenever it’s an issue. B. Solbrig feels the signs should remind people to be sensitive to the neighbors. B. Reiman asks what language are the police using when they run people off? Does it frame St. Luke’s as the enemy? B. Solbrig says yes, if we are framed as the enemy this is why we should have a sign that asks people to remember their neighbors. B. Reiman is unsure about the inclusion of a sign or if it will be efficacious. C. Larsen states that earlier language the police used wasn’t targeting St. Luke’s, but now the police have authority to drive lawbreakers away whereas before they did not. B. Solbrig says a sign could show neighbors that we are trying to deal with the basketball problem noise problem, it’s not just for those breaking the rules. B. Reiman asks if representatives of the church should speak to the neighbors and reassure them that we are aware of the problem and ask that they continue to call the police? C. Larsen points out that St. Luke’s has signs about other things like parking and one of them has been destroyed, so they aren’t terribly helpful. J. Jacobs states the police have said we should take the basketball hoops down to make it less attractive to lawbreakers. B. Solbrig says the hoops serves the neighborhood and its children. Lawbreakers aren’t attracted by the hoops so much as the large parking lot. The noise issue is a recent issue. Taking down the hoops doesn’t serve the neighborhood. Several congregation members have already stated they would be upset if the hoops were taken down. C. Larsen says he has never seen someone playing with those hoops and he is at the church frequently. Both B. Reiman and B. Solbrig state they have seen neighborhood children using the hoops during the day. B. Solbrig says if St. Luke’s put up fences or locked people out, it tells people they are not welcome and defies the message of the Episcopal Church. Why are we here if we’re not welcoming? B. Moskalik questions at one point does the negative press and damage outweigh the value of the hoops? The noise angers the neighbors. B. Reiman states if it’s that much trouble, it’s a police matter and they should deal
with it. B. Moskalik points out that means the church is asking the police to “babysit” its property. D. Cooper: the police have more important things to do and will eventually come to us and will tell us they don’t want to deal with it anymore. B. Solbrig says we’ve had the hoops for a long time and it’s only been recently a problem that will go away when it gets colder. B. Moskalik says he is aware of another organization that has had a similar issue. Taking down the hoops and putting them back up doesn’t fix it. B. Reiman says he doesn’t see a problem with apologizing to the neighbors. B. Solbrig says putting up the signs is a simple thing to do that shows the neighbors we care about them. B. Reiman agrees that could be the next step. B. Solbrig points out there might also be a consideration if we are looking for a new rector and this might influence a person’s decision to come here. Showing we care about our neighborhood shows our outreach. Not doing that will show we don’t care about our neighborhood and will give us a negative impression for rector candidates.
ii. C. Larsen says he will continue to dialogue with the police about this. He is also looking into surveillance and video cameras. What would be involved to have that? There is only one place in town really that provides such equipment and the proprietor is currently out of town. J. Jacobs is from the neighborhood and knows that it is easy to see into the church and its contents and advises that shades should be drawn to offer more privacy. B. Solbrig agrees because it allows property to avoid sun damage.
Bert Reiman – Kitchen Update / i. B. Reiman reminds the vestry that at the previous meeting, it was
shared that J. Reiman consulted with kitchen users and some changes were suggested to the architects based upon their feedback. Those suggested changes have since been incorporated into the plans. Benike was then to solicit bids for the updated plan. They have been working on that. Carolyn, the architect liaison at CRW, says that Benike has more access to subcontractors and that makes them a good outfit to collect the bids. B. Reiman spoke with another person, Jason, from the architect firm CRW yesterday. He outlined the process for B. Reiman. B. Reiman wanted to know if smaller contractors could be contacted to see what their bid would be. Jason was not sure. D. Cooper points out that there aren’t that many outfits in town that do this kind of work. B. Reiman says that plan A is for Benike to get those bids from subcontractors as originally agreed. C. Larsen points out the church is proceeding with plans that will not be a commercial kitchen but could be extended into a commercial
kitchen in the future. D. Cooper says that if the church ever made the conversion, there are some pretty big changes that would have to happen. B. Reiman agrees, but thinks the chance of the church ever actually putting in a commercial kitchen is relatively small. The bidding process is progressing and there will hopefully be bids to consider soon. M. Harris asks what the deadline is for having the construction complete for the elevator project? C. Larsen answers the first part of September. D. Cooper thinks that the pack/troop location change would be taking place in 2018, well clear of the elevator remodel but it could run into the kitchen remodel, but that can be worked around. C. Larsen would like to iterate that J. Reiman has done a phenomenal job coordinating this kitchen project. D. Cooper raised a question regarding finances. Is there enough money to pay for the kitchen remodel? B. Reiman states that CRW knows that finances are an issue and the church may have to proceed in stages for the renovation.
Superior Mechanical – Maintenance Agreement i. C. Larsen says the church received a bid from Superior Mechanical
for a maintenance agreement. It’s $685 semi-annually. They would change the filters annually and clean the equipment of detritus, evaluate and test the systems, etc. It would be a shame to have spent all this money on a new system and then not keep it in good condition. This maintenance agreement would also include all the tests required by the city. The vestry can either decide to take some time to think about this and vote on it next month or vote on it tonight. D. Cooper says there is not currently money in the budget for this agreement, but if it’s decided to go ahead the finance committee would have to approve it. B. Reiman moves that Superior provides maintenance under contract, renewable annually. D. Cooper asks that we check on the cancellation policy as well as the renewable policy. B. Reiman doesn’t want all that as part of the motion just that St. Luke’s should enter into a maintenance agreement as soon as we can with reasonable changes requested if need be. D. Cooper seconds. The motion doesn’t require funding, but D. Cooper has found an area in the budget that could cover it with an agreed-upon budget increase by the finance committee. Vote passes by voice vote; none opposed. It is agreed the payment would be semi-annual rather than annual.
ii. B. Reiman asks, what is the status of the roof and gutter repair? C. Larsen states he thinks that it has been done, but he will double-check.
D. Evangelism / Incorporation i. Nothing to report
E. Communication i. Nothing to report
F. Hospitality i. Nothing to report
G. Social Activities i. Nothing to report
H. Faith Formation i. Nothing to report
I. Pastoral Care i. Nothing to report
J. Worship i. Nothing to report
5. Focused Conversation: Eagle Scout Project
C. Larsen explains that an Eagle Scout labyrinth project opportunity has come to St. Luke’s. It was initially going to be on K. Mueller’s Hope ranch, but that ranch may not be accessible to the public in the future if the ranch is sold. D. Cooper states that there are a few details in the Eagle Scout project that need to be clarified. Based upon the Boy Scout’s age, the project needs to be done by October of next year. D. Cooper also wants to make sure the scout knows that a great deal of precision is needed for projects like this. C. Larsen says some heavy equipment will be used. D. Cooper wants to make sure that we’re clear on who can use that type of equipment. B. Solbrig asks, where would this project be? C. Larsen answers the front of the church near the main sign. It would be accessible to the public from the street or our smaller parking area. D. Cooper says the project may not go perfectly and the church should have some say over the location and quality of the end product, but the most important thing is developing leadership in the scout. C. Larsen says that Calvary may be involved as well, they might be interested in helping with fundraising, although we don’t need to know that for sure right now. B. Reiman wants to know if the vestry can approve the concept so the scout can proceed. S. Parham would like to know if the labyrinth will be used more than the firepit, which is a previous Eagle Scout project. B. Reiman states that the firepit has been used for a service. B. Solbrig also thinks it has been used a couple times. S. Parham would not want the project to detract from the property. B. Reiman
moves that the vestry approve the concept. K. Connelly seconds. Motion passes by voice vote. None opposed.
6. Other Business / Decisions A. C. Larsen is working on re-vamping the communications process regarding
what names will be used in communications from St. Luke’s and in social media. B. Solbrig and B. Bornholz are both also on the committee. At the next meeting C. Larsen is hoping to report who the new leadership on that issue will be.
B. Search committee update: T. Moskalik reports the process began last year and outlined the timeline to this date. Next Tuesday there will be an informal social gathering for the vestry to meet one of the candidates. That gathering will be at 7pm on the 25th of July.
7. Concluding Prayer and Adjourn
C. Larsen adjourns the meeting by leading members in the Lord’s Prayer at 19:09.
Special Vestry Meeting: 25 July 2017 AGENDA Chaired by Chuck Larsen – serving as Warden Attending: Bert Reiman Mike Harris Kathy Connelly Darren Cooper Tom Moskalik Barbara Solbrig Jane Jacobs Sharon Parham Meeting commenced at 20:35 T. Moskalik, as a representative of the rector search committee announces that the search committee has recommended the acceptance of the Right Reverend Justin Chapman to serve as the next rector of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church. B. Reiman so moves to accept the search committee’s recommendation. K. Connelly seconds the motion. Discussion commences regarding the acceptance of the Right Reverend Justin Chapman as rector for St. Luke’s Episcopal Church. Discussion topics included questions regarding what the search process entailed for the search committee, including their review of candidates. Questions about this process were answered by T. Moskalik and M. Harris, both of who also served on the rector search committee. Further discussion focused on the skills and talents Fr. Justin Chapman would bring to St. Luke’s, as well as areas of growth opportunity for him and for the church. There will be challenges that will need to be addressed, particularly in St. Luke’s priority of growing the church, and Fr. Chapman’s plans to address that priority were discussed. At the end of the discussion period, Sr. Warden C. Larsen called for a vote. By voice vote, the majority voted to approve the search committee’s recommendation to accept Fr. Justin Chapman as the next rector of St. Luke’s. 1 abstention, none opposed. Further discussion focused on what the next steps in the process will entail. C. Larsen adjourns the meeting by leading all Vestry members in the Lord’s Prayer. Meeting adjourns at 21:00.
Special Vestry Meeting: 07 August 2017 In attendance: Tom Moskalik Darren Cooper Kathy Connelly Barbara Solbrig Bert Reiman Jane Jacobs Mike Harris Sharon Parham Fr. Justin Chapman AGENDA Chaired by Chuck Larsen – serving as Warden
1. Opening Prayer by C. Larsen at 18:58
2. Apologies for absence: B. Moskalik; J. Martinak
3. Approval of Minutes & Correspondence
A. S. Parham moves to approve the July minutes and July 25 special vestry minutes. K. Connelly seconds. B. Solbrig provides minor amendment to July 25th special vestry minutes. Voice vote regarding amended minutes passes. None opposed.
4. Working Groups UPDATE:
A. Administration—Rector Approved
i. C. Larsen references Fr. J. Chapman’s letter of agreement regarding his intent on how things will operate. D. Cooper explains that 99% of the letter is boilerplate, but there are some differences. At bottom of first page regarding leave, changed from 6mos of continuous employment to 4 because Fr. J. Chapman has a March vacation already scheduled. There is also a retreat he will be partaking in in Jan, which will count towards continuing education. Some minor changes have been made from the boilerplate regarding leave, salary, benefits, reimbursement for continuing education, cell phone reimbursement, start date, and primary residence contribution.
B. Buildings and Grounds—Video Surveillance System—Custom Alarm Quote; Kitchen Remodel Update—B. Reiman
i. Video surveillance system: M. Harris references the provided quote in supplemental documents and notes this quote only includes internal cameras, not covering the parking lot. Why? C. Larsen explains that covering the parking lot would be very, very expensive because it needs to be wireless. The quote covers all entries and exits; we wouldn’t necessarily need all of those, but all are in the quote. B. Solbrig asks if there would also be door alarms, etc. to trigger the cameras. Discussion continues regarding length of film retention, maintenance packages for the camera and other hardware clarification. D. Cooper suggests mounting a camera on the outside of the church to get some parking lot coverage and post signs. M. Harris states the real issue of interest regarding security is the outside of the church and the parking lot. Surveying that issue is the most important thing and helps us be good stewards in the neighborhood. J. Jacobs agrees with M. Harris and suggests consulting with the police department to make sure the positioning of the cameras would give them what they need to pursue future action. Discussion continues, addressing whether it is most important to have coverage inside or outside of St. Luke’s. T. Moskalik suggests that there are other cheaper options that are motion activated and agrees to share contact information for those who know about such things with C. Larsen. As a final note, B. Reiman cautions that we should be careful about escalating the parking lot situation in pursuing a surveillance option.
ii. Kitchen Remodel: B. Reiman shares that C. Larsen and J. Reiman met with Benike about the kitchen remodel. The cost estimator has estimated the cost to be probably more than St. Luke’s has budgeted for the project. The kitchen remodel committee will meet and discuss this and will make a recommendation to the vestry after that discussion. C. Larsen states that J. Reiman has done an amazing job in her role with this. It’s disappointing to know the cost may exceed our budget, but J. Reiman’s impressive work should be noted.
C. Hospitality—Fr. Ernie’s Departure Party
i. C. Larsen shares that Fr. E. Ashcroft will be gone for 2 weeks starting Sept 15. The trip has already been postponed once. He would return Oct 2, but due to canonical agreements, he would need to be gone for 2 weeks before Fr. J. Chapman starts. D. Cooper suggests a reception on a Sunday in the fellowship hall. J. Jacobs shares that if Fr. J. Chapman starts on 10/15 or earlier, Fr. E. Ashcroft’s last day with St. Luke’s would be 9/10. D. Cooper suggests 9/10 for the party. C. Larsen notes that leaves only a
month to plan the party. D. Cooper suggests a committee is necessary to plan the party. C. Larsen will also ask Fr. E. Ashcroft if he would like services to be combined that day. C. Larsen asks for committee volunteers. D. Cooper volunteers to help plan, but can’t chair.
D. Worship
i. Nothing to report E. Finance
i. Nothing to report F. Outreach
i. Nothing to report
G. Evangelism/Incorporation i. Nothing to report
H. Communication i. According to C. Larsen, B. Moskalik has agreed to chair the
committee and will meet with B. Bornholz and will find others to serve on the committee.
ii. T. Moskalik points out that the website needs to be updated that St. Luke’s has called a new rector; right now it still says we are looking.
I. Social Activities i. D. Cooper shares that there is a young families gathering at the
end of the month at the Graves’ home. S. Parham suggests inviting those who will be baptizing their children in the near future. It is also suggested that an invitation is extended to Fr. J. Chapman and his wife.
J. Faith Formation i. Nothing to report
K. Pastoral Care i. CL: thanks to the search committee for their work in calling FJC.
The response at all three services was positive. Congregants were vocal in their enthusiasm.
ii. BS: we should add FJC, St Luke’s, and the Cathedral to our prayer concerns as all go through a time of transition.
5. Focused Conversation: Fr. J. Chapman—Accelerator Project
i. In reference to the accelerator project outlined in supplemental documents, Fr. J. Chapman shares that this project is recommended by a colleague who has some experience with it. In a nutshell: St. Luke’s would contract to work with the experienced colleague from now until a few months after Fr. J. Chapman’s
start date to get people excited and kick off growth in the congregation. B. Reiman questions where this program has been previously implemented. Fr. J. Chapman answers the Diocese of Olympia in Washington, as well as elsewhere. A short discussion is had regarding if St. Luke’s has the money to invest in this project. D. Cooper states that it does. Discussion continues regarding the timeline of the project. As B. Reiman points out, the project takes about 6 weeks of lead time before a new priest comes on board, so Fr. J. Chapman’s official start date would have to be in part based upon this timeline. D. Cooper points out that St. Luke’s has a small window of time to make this happen, but it is contingent upon approving funding and approving a participating committee to get the process started. There are some concerns added by various members about the cost and previous success or failure of the program. J. Jacobs states that what we’re purchasing is an investment and an opportunity to give Fr. J. Chapman a chance to think through where we’re heading, the congregation the chance to think through where we want to go, and we can marry the two together. The coach of the project sets us up for success.
ii. B. Reiman moves to adopt the accelerator program. D. Cooper caveats; the adoption should be contingent upon an appropriate committee of people. S. Parham asks how many people need to be on the committee? Fr. J. Chapman was unsure, but later adds following information gathering that the committee will need to be approximately 4 people (see below). Coaching of the project would be done largely remotely as the coach is not in the state. K. Connelly seconds the motion. D. Cooper adds that an adoption vote is agreeable as long as St. Luke’s doesn’t sign a contract until an acceptable committee is in place. B. Reiman moves to amend his motion to include that St. Luke’s proceeds with the project contingent upon Fr. J. Chapman getting more details and finding out if it’s feasible—how many people, their dynamic, etc. D. Cooper seconds. On the amendment, the motion passes by voice vote. None opposed. On the original motion, T. Moskalik continues the discussion. He states that this project seems “fluffy” and doesn’t have measurable results. If Fr. J. Chapman thinks it’s great, he’d vote for it, but he has reservations. M. Harries agrees that it would be great if there were more information about outcomes, measured results, etc. But is that an appropriate thing for a church? How do churches assess these things? B. Reiman states the document provided notes there have been some successes at other places, enough so that others have recommended it. A discussion follows regarding how difficult to
measure many of these outcomes are. J. Jacobs reminds the vestry that it is important to think both qualitatively and quantitatively. St. Luke’s needs to approach this as an investment in helping a new rector acquaint with a new congregation and vice versa. On the motion to adopt the program, contingent upon more info from Fr. J. Chapman regarding the necessary committee, the vote passes by voice vote. None opposed.
iii. After information gathering, Fr. J. Chapman returns to share what he has learned regarding the project committee. The committee should be about 4 people who are the most excited about this project. The committee should include 1 person from Vestry, 1 person from the call committee, 1 person from Communications, and actually 2 others. 1 person needs to be willing to head it up and schedule at least the first meeting. M. Harries volunteers to be part of the committee and will schedule the first meeting. J.Jacobs volunteers to send name recommendations to M. Harris. S. Parham and M. Harris also agree that someone representing Faith Formation/ Young Families should be on the committee.
6. Other Business / Decisions
7. Concluding Prayer with the Lord’s Prayer and Adjournment at 20:01pm.
Vestry Meeting: 18 September 2017 In attendance Bert Reiman Tom Moskalik Brian Moskalik Kathy Connelly Barbra Solbrig Sharon Parham Mike Harris Darren Cooper Jeffrey Martinak AGENDA Chaired by Chuck Larsen – serving as Warden
1. Opening Prayer at 19:00, led by C. Larsen
2. Apologies for absence: J. Jacobs
3. Approval of Minutes & Correspondence; T. Moskalik moves to approve the minutes. K Connelly seconds. Approval passes by voice vote. None opposed.
4. Working Groups UPDATE:
A. Finance – D. Cooper – Annual Appeal & Consecration Sunday;
see Focused Conversation A. B. Buildings & Grounds – B. Reiman – Kitchen Update; see Focused
Conversation B. C. Administration – M. – Accelerator Project; see Focused
Conversation C. D. Communication
i. Nothing new to report E. Outreach
i. Nothing new to report F. Evangelism / Incorporation
i. Nothing new to report G. Hospitality
i. Happy birthday to J. Martinak! H. Social Activities
i. Nothing new to report I. Faith Formation
i. Nothing new to report J. Pastoral Care
i. Nothing new to report K. Worship
i. Nothing new to report
5. Focused Conversation: A, B, C Focused Conversation A. Finance
D. Cooper reminds the Vestry that last year Consecration Sunday was not on St. Luke’s Day.
This year that should be on Oct. 22nd; as it stands, he proposes we plan to do Consecration
Sunday on that day, which is 2 weeks before Fr. J. Chapman starts and Fr. E. Ashcroft will be in
attendance to lead the service. The plan will largely follow last year’s. There will be a letter that
needs to go out soon, a follow up letter with pledge cards, and some web content. Some
volunteers would also be needed for a couple weeks before to share at services why they
support St. Luke’s. A discussion ensues regarding what the theme of this year’s Consecration
Sunday should be. Last year’s theme was “Everyone Counts.” Suggestions from vestry members
include “A Fresh Start” or “A New Beginning.” Should the theme directly reference this time of
transition? A theme reflecting community might be desirable. “Building Community” is
suggested by M. Harris. B. Solbrig suggests “Building Our Faith Community.” Hospitality for
the day might include food, such as bagels and mini quiches, and it might also be good to have
a single service. Determining if there will only be 1 service is desirable given the timeline, but
the final decision will probably have to wait until Fr. E. Ashcroft returns.
Focused Conversation B. Building and Grounds
B. Reiman provided a report and recommendations from the kitchen planning committee. The
main take-away is that the whole kitchen remodel is planned. There are some things that will
stay, such as the triple sink, stove, and other appliances. The center counter is going to be
enlarged. B. Reiman references a separate document outlining the committee’s
recommendation. There are funding concerns, as St. Luke’s does not currently have the funds
to carry out the recommendations outlined by the committee. There are many benefits to the
kitchen plan to make it more user-friendly. Prolonging the kitchen project will ultimately cost
more in the long run.
S. Parham queries if other remodel projects have come in on budget. If there is any money left,
it will go to the kitchen remodel, but it will not be enough to cover the shortfall between what is
planned and the funds we have. If we do not do the kitchen, there will be unhappy congregants
as having a new kitchen was a priority for many who pledged.
B. Solbrig asks if it is known how long it would take to remodel, start to finish? B. Reiman
answers no, but the project probably wouldn’t be started until next year and may take a couple
months.
M. Harris asks about options for closing the gap between the amount of renovation money St.
Luke’s has and what it requires for the kitchen remodel. D. Cooper outlines a couple strategies,
such as allocating funds from the capital reserve, tapping into amounts given to the
endowment, or drawing against St. Luke’s line of credit. These strategies have various pros and
cons and all are significant enough decisions as to require additional input from the
membership. B. Solbrig asks if can we borrow it from ourselves from the investment fund
instead of a line of credit? D. Cooper answers that he would have to look into it, but there are
some roadblocks to it at the very least. More fundraising is also an option. Discussion
continues on various ways to raise funds.
B. Reiman moves that we proceed with the kitchen construction. M. Harris would like to
know more information about where the funding is going to come from. T. Moskalik seconds
the motion. T. Moskalik then moves to table the motion until the next meeting so more
information can be received. B. Solbrig seconds the motion to table. There will be more
information available at the next meeting, including the elevator project final costs. The
motion to table the original motion from B. Reiman is voted on, and passes by voice vote.
None opposed.
Focused Conversation C. Accelerator Project
M. Harris gives background information regarding what the accelerator project is, which
includes the formation of a welcome committee, which has been done. The consultant, D.
Bender, would like several things brought up with the vestry. The first: some work around
crafting the messaging announcing Fr. J. Chapman’s arrival. A welcome message has been
drafted, which was then read aloud by M. Harris to the Vestry members. B. Reiman suggests
more advertising not only for Fr. Chapman’s welcome service, but also advertising and
messaging for the 5:00pm service. M. Harris agrees and states there will be some outreach to
those whose attendance have lapsed once Fr. Chapman is installed. Fr. Chapman’s first
weekend may include a Saturday service that is also the Saturday night that the Thanksgiving
dinner is held on. The consultant, D. Bender, will be traveling here and would like to meet with
the Vestry on Oct 10, 6:30pm. There will be a dinner afterwards. Any Vestry member who can
attend would be welcomed. The dinner afterwards would also be a working dinner with the
communications committee. Some things needed in the future: update website to align with
messaging and branding, update Facebook page, etc. M. Harris asks if there are resources to
be had to help with this? Are there additional people who would help with this? B. Moskalik
can technically advise, but does not have the time to do it at this point. Who can own this
process? At this point, this question does not have an answer. An updated copy of the directory
is also in the works and personalized outreach to people will be attempted by the Vestry
members. The list will be divvied up. Since there will also be an outreach about pledging,
maybe those efforts can be aligned. Fr. Chapman’s arrival needs to be included in both. D.
Bender would like those phone calls to happen between Oct. 20th and Nov. 6th. D. Bender also
suggests coordinating Lifeline updates with a website redesign. A key item is making sure there
is a social media strategy to announce Fr. Chapman’s arrival. C. Larsen thanks the welcome
committee for their work.
6. Other Business / Decisions A. D. Cooper announces that the finance committee will need to identify a new chair by the end
of the year and more members may also be necessary.
B. S. Parham asks if we have we seen a reduction in our utility bill? D. Cooper answers no, but
that will be investigated. We may have had a rate increase and some comparisons of usage
need to be made.
C. S. Parham wants more information about security cameras. C. Larsen is still in conversation
with the security camera salesperson and is working out what the bid for the system would be.
D. B. Reiman asks how the roof looks right now? C. Larsen: a quote is coming for the kitchen
roof which is in rough shape.
7. C. Larsen leads the Vestry in the Lord’s Prayer and adjourns at 20:05.
Vestry Meeting: 16 October 2017 In attendance: Mike Harris Barbra Solbrig Darren Cooper Kathy Connelly Tom Moskalik Bert Reiman Brian Moskalik AGENDA Chaired by C. Larsen – serving as Warden
1. Opening Prayer commences at 19:00, led by C. Larsen.
2. Apologies for absence: S. Parham, J. Jacobs
3. Approval of Minutes & Correspondence. T. Moskalik moves to approve the minutes; K. Connelly seconds. Passes by voice vote, none opposed.
4. Working Groups:
A. Administration – Larsen – Annual Meeting Date, Nominating
Committee; see Focused Conversation 1 B. Hospitality – Consecration Sunday Coffee Hour
i. Consecration Sunday is this coming Sunday and C. Larsen will need a
little assistance with serving and making sure everything is ready to go.
C. Finance – Cooper – Rector’s Housing Allowance; see Focused Conversation 2
D. Harris – Accelerator Project; see Focused Conversation 3. E. Building & Grounds – Landscaping; see Focused Conversation 4.
5. Focused Conversation 1: Annual Meeting Date, Nominating Committee
C. Larsen reports Rev J. Chapman would like the annual meeting date set prior to his
arrival and would like there to be two services that day with the meeting held between
Sunday services. The focus would be the budget, approving the budget, and elections. All
other reports could be in written form or during an additional forum if necessary. D.
Cooper points out that the budget cannot be done without final year-end numbers, so
pushing it to the end of Jan/early Feb would be best. Potentially the 28th of January would
be a good week given the end of the year and end of quarter timelines. The January vestry
meeting might also be able to vote on the budget beforehand. B. Reiman asks if it would
be helpful to have the meeting on Feb. 4th for the budget, even though it’s Super Bowl
Sunday (which is in the evening). D. Cooper states that since this was done on Jan. 29th
last year, the timeline for the 28th seems reasonable this year, especially since we’re
deciding upon this in October. The vestry body agrees to hold the meeting on the 28th of
January.
C. Larsen points out we also need the congregation to start submitting names of people
they’d like to see on the vestry. B. Solbrig adds that people may submit their own names
as well. D. Cooper states the rector needs to put together a nominating committee. C.
Larsen reminds the Vestry that to be a junior or senior warden, the position holder would
have had to have served on the vestry for at least 3 years at some point. Junior and senior
warden also need to have a 3 year hiatus from being on the vestry in order to serve. D.
Cooper and others disagree, so the rules will be double-checked to make sure the
guidelines are followed. If people can start submitting names soon there will be plenty of
time for thoughtfulness in putting together the nominating committee.
Focused Conversation 2: Rector’s Housing Allowance
D. Cooper states at least once a year we are required to pass a resolution regarding a
housing alliance for our rector. This allowance will cover the remainder of 2017. It’s a
clarification for how the salary package gets disseminated re: what is salary and what is
housing. As a reminder, if a rector requests an amount greater than what they actually pay
in housing it is taxable income and they are required to pay taxes on it. The rector is
responsible for making sure guidelines such as this are followed. The amount of
compensation Rev J. Chapman will earn is basically 3.5 pay periods through the end of
the year. Total cash compensation for the remainder of 2017 shall include $5,000 for the
housing allowance. T. Moskalik moves to approve. M. Harris seconds. The vote
passes by voice vote; none opposed. See attachment at end of document for
additional detail.
Focused Conversation 3: Accelerator Project
M. Harris reminds the Vestry that calls need to be made between the week of Oct 30th
and Nov 4th. The vestry will be making calls inviting people to church for Rev. J.
Chapman’s first Sunday. The list will be finalized and sorted over the next week and then
an email will be sent to each member with who they are to call. B. Reiman will be
unavailable to make calls.
The consultant’s meeting with the welcome committee last week accomplished a few
things, which included a walk through of St. Luke’s and suggestions were made as to
things to think about in terms of what visitors would like to see. Summary: reorganize the
narthex and fellowship hall to create sort of visitor’s center, communications center, etc.
S.Martinak is mostly in charge of that process. B. Reiman says there’s a potential place for
improvement here, which is the elevator hall. That space could be used. The walls are
large. D. Cooper states that we need to remember that the fellowship hall is a multi-use
room so we need to be careful what gets put in there. B. Moskalik observes the TV outside
the fellowship hall which shows a lot of data but people don’t really seem to look at it. It
might not be the best place for it because people just walk past it on their way to coffee
hour. Maybe it should be moved to a place where people gather. B. Solbrig agrees,
depending on how Rev J. Chapman wants to use the TV, moving it somewhere else might
be useful as a long-term goal.
M. Harris continues that as high priority, we should have some extra greeters for the
weeks preceding Rev J. Chapman’s arrival as well as his first Sunday. We may want to
collect visitor cards and send out emails regarding our Christmas service content. We
definitely want extra greeters. Ask K. Gould for extra greeters; can also include in the
Lifelines asking for assistance in that way.
Long-term plans include signage suggestions: context as a visitor is a little strange
because people come into the back of the church and the front is not necessarily clear that
it’s St. Luke’s. Suggestions: layers of signage, starting with the intersections. T. Moskalik
says city ordinance required those signs to be taken down. B. Reiman ask, should we ask
the city again? Could re revisit it? B. Reiman suggests talking to our city council member;
he says he is happy to do that but he will be gone until the first part of November. M.
Harris agrees this is a long-term plan. B. Solbrig says fliers distributed should include
parking directions to make clear. We should also update the website on the main page
with that information. That information could also be on the Facebook page, as well as the
fact that an elevator is available. Low priority is that the handicapped space signs state
people need to park up top but they no longer need to. C. Larsen says we need to have new
signage about parking anyway. The accelerator consultant also recommended against
having staff-reserved parking spaces. The parking spaces down below will be taken down.
M Harris continues: Long-term suggestion is replacing St. Luke’s signage. There are 2
signs on the building. One is plastic that looks a little temporary and weather-worn. It’s a
vinyl one on the side of the fellowship hall. It doesn’t show up well. There is also not a
clear indication of where you’re supposed to go. There should be a sign above the double-
door entry welcoming visitors so they know where to go. K. Connelly suggests a sign near
the drop-off circle that could also be lit up. That would entail some cost but would be
more visible and helpful for visitors.
In the downstairs entry, we could also use some more artwork and décor and moving
some furniture and coat racks around to make it more welcoming. Suggestions follow
from various vestry members regarding art suggestions.
Rev J. Chapman will reach out to K. Schmidt for some photography for his business cards,
aka Moo cards. B. Solbrig also explains that some narrow cards will be made up to use as
“invite your friends” or evangelization cards to hand out with St. Luke’s basic information.
D. C. Larsen: there are still some outstanding bills for Benike for the elevator project. He
does not yet have final numbers. CRW’s bills have been paid. B. Reiman would like an
update on our expenses for our capital campaign, where we’re at financially and how
much money we have left. It would also be good to know what our endowment is at and if
any of it can be applied to the capital campaign or not. That’s information that would be
helpful. A clarification of our funding options is necessary. D. Cooper: every dollar in the
pooled investment fund account has been accounted for. The way the fund is structured it
can be used as a permanent endowment, but it doesn’t have to be. The current balance is
approximately $94,00. B. Reiman: our new rector will need this information as well in
advance of trying to fund the kitchen project. B. Reiman moves to re-table the motion for
the kitchen capital campaign discussion until the next meeting. M. Harris seconds. Passes
by voice vote, none opposed.
Focused Conversation 4: Building & Grounds – Landscaping C. Larsen states some work needs to be done yet to get water flowing the right way to the
street the way we need it. Two bids have been submitted; the details have been provided
to the vestry on a separate document. Clarification details are discussed as to what the two
bids cover. D. Cooper suggests that the “nice to have” parts of the bid should not be
considered at this time and we should just do what is absolutely necessary right now.
Strategies are discussed for funding the necessary projects in landscaping. B. Reiman
agrees it would be a good idea to do the grading and other necessary landscaping.
B. Reiman moves that we proceed with the grading, fabric, drainage and rock
landscaping immediately and wait for plantings until spring. The vendor
would be dependent on who is available and if they want to move on it right
away; they must be done and cleaned up by Nov. 10th. Vendor decision will be
deferred based upon availability. T. Moskalik seconds the motion. Passes by
voice vote. None opposed.
C. Larsen explains there is a quote from Merit regarding the kitchen roof which is in bad
condition. Merit found some unnecessary vents that can be closed off. B. Moskalik asks
with the kitchen remodel, would we have to move vents around? Discussion seems to
agree that there shouldn’t need to be any vent movement. T. Moskalik wants to know if it
would still be a flat roof? C. Larsen says yes, although why is unknown. D. Cooper warns
there would be spots where additional expense could be incurred particularly when it
comes to electrical and the underlayment board. B. Solbrig wants to ensure that the new
landscaping going in next to the kitchen won’t be affected by the construction crew point
of entry. B. Reiman moves to approve the roof proposal using the capital
improvement fund, hopefully as soon as possible. K. Connelly seconds.
Further discussion: M. Harris asks if we could check to see if we could have something
other than a flat roof? T. Moskalik: can it be pitched on one end? D. Cooper thinks maybe
it would be pitched or sloped in some ways. It would be worth asking. C. Larsen will be
investigating if that is possible. B. Reiman amends his motion to include C.
Larsen’s ability to ask questions and investigate. B. Reiman withdraws his
initial motion. He suggests that we repair the roof after investigating the proposal more
fully. D. Cooper moves having C. Larsen investigate with the contractor on the
issue of drainage and then make a proposal via email to the vestry given the
substantive discussion that has already happened. B. Reiman seconds the
motion. Motion passes by voice vote; none opposed. B. Reiman remind the Vestry
that the roofing contractors are the expert and we should defer to their knowledge.
6. Other Business / Decisions
A. None B.
7. Concluding Prayer at 20:17pm and Adjourn
Rector Housing Addendum:
On October 17, 2017 D. Cooper sent out supplementary information on the rector housing
allocation, which reads as follows: The following resolution was duly adopted by the
vestry of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church at a regular meeting held on 10/16/2017 a quorum
being present: Whereas, the Reverend Justin P. Chapman is compensated by St. Luke’s
Episcopal Church exclusively for the services as a minister of the gospel; and Whereas, St.
Luke’s Episcopal Church does not provide Rev, Chapman with a rectory; therefore, it is
hereby Resolved, that the total compensation paid to Rev. Chapman for the remainder of
calendar year 2017 shall be $10,050.00, of which $5,000 is hereby designated to be a
housing allowance pursuant to Section 107 of the Internal Revenue Code; and it is further
Resolved, that the designation of $5,000 as a housing allowance shall apply to calendar
year 2017 only.
Vestry Meeting November 20, 2017, 19:00 In attendance: Brian Moskalik Tom Moskalik Bert Reiman Chuck Larsen Darren Cooper Justin Chapman Mike Harris Jane Jacobs Sharon Parham Barbara Solbrig Chaired by Rev J. Chapman Agenda
1. Opening Prayer commences at 19:01by Rev. J Chapman
a. Opening with scripture (John 15:12-17), led by Rev. J Chapman. A discussion ensues on the meaning of that scripture and what it means to meeting attendants.
2. Call to order & apologies for absence: K. Connelly
3. Approval of October minutes
a. Move to accept as amended by T. Moskalik; M. Harris seconds. Vote passes by voice vote, none opposed.
4. Vestry norms & function
a. RJC inquires about how the vestry meetings tend to run. How do we pay attention as a vestry to the community, both the church community and the local community? B. Solbrig and S. Parham offer that Vestry members reach out to church members, particularly the leaders of committees and other church groups. When there are projects continually updating the laity on progress is important and subcommittees keep the vestry apprised of necessary information. Church members approach vestry members with questions or concerns. M. Harris adds that the vestry tries to be proactive and transparent with how decisions are made in communicating with the church body. D. Cooper points out that Vestry members also are represented on various church committees. B. Reiman note in this interim time we have lacked input from a church leader in the form of a rector.
b. Rev. J. Chapman asks, how do we discern God’s direction for us in knowing what is important in our church and in our community? It is discussed by various vestry members that St. Luke’s did a lot of discernment at the start of our time without a rector but we
knew a lot of our ideas and efforts would have to be tabled until we had a new rector. We have maintained the efforts we were engaged in previously such as the Sunset Terrace ministry. We didn’t back down from major projects such as the elevator project and that was partly an effort to reach out to the community. S. Parham offers that prayer and listening are important for determining the path. B. Solbrig agrees that we are a community and are called to be in discernment together as a team with our rector. B. Reiman states the vestry has tried to execute previous plans that were decided upon prior to our time of transition that we felt that we were called to do but we did not initiate a lot of new programs. M. Harris agrees that at St. Luke’s we have a lot of ministry and outreach efforts but for the past couple years a lot of our focus has been inward and perhaps necessarily so given the transitions that have happened.
c. Rev. J. Chapman asks, what are the gifts that St. Luke’s has to offer Rochester? Various vestry members discuss that St. Luke’s has:
i. a talented new rector
ii. a great community
iii. a church that feels like home.
iv. decent finances
v. decently accessible
vi. a talented corps of volunteers
vii. a nice facility with good parking.
The discernment process has made clear a lot of gifts that St. Luke’s has to offer. J. Jacobs states we meet people where they are and give them space to give what they can & when they want to. Rev. J. Chapman concurs; Vestries are boards that make decisions but also are tasked with discernment.
d. Rev. J. Chapman asks that if a Vestry member wants to discuss something in the meeting, writing it up and sending it out a week ahead of time would be preferable so that people can come prepared to discuss with requisite background knowledge. All the members agree to try. Rev. J. Chapman clarifies that to his understanding, the church staff reports to him and not the Vestry, so the “buck stops with him.” If a staff member wasn’t working out, being transparent with the Vestry about the process would be standard operating procedure. In regards to how the budget gets spent: the congregation approves the budget, the Vestry approves changes to the budget and within the budget lines it’s the rector’s job to spend that money in appropriate ways. With small things it’s in the rector’s purview to spend the money by working in conjunction with the treasurer to make sure the budget is not overspent. Vestry members agree this assessment is accurate.
e. In regards to the nominating committee for Vestry elections, Rev. J. Chapman is the chair of that and can form the committee, which is subject to Vestry approval. B. Solbrig states
that people at large and an outgoing Vestry member can be on the committee, as well as people who are not planning on being on the committee. C. Larsen has been in charge of collecting names but thus far no one has submitted. Rev. J. Chapman requests suggestions for the nominating committee. Several names were put forth by various vestry members. An additional suggestion is made to have Rev. J. Chapman submit names to the vestry via email and then members can approve. See Addendums 1 and 2.
5. Rector’s report
a. Rev. J. Chapman will send out the rector’s report which will include meetings, projects, vacation time tracking, etc. The report probably doesn’t require a lot of conversation but RJC will answer whatever questions the Vestry might have. The main thing he has done is meet with staff and find out what their thoughts are. The report will be sent via email. See Addendum 3.
b. Rev. J. Chapman’s weekly day off will probably be Fridays, but that is subject to change right now during this time of transition.
c. It will have to be decided how to disseminate Rev. J. Chapman’s cell phone number. Perhaps an updated directory might be helpful. When an alarm (fire, etc.) happens, the alarm company doesn’t know who to call so we have to find out how to get contact info to them. It might be helpful to check with the police too and give them contact information.
6. Altar kneelers
a. S. Parham reports the accelerator consultant who came to the church said that the altar cushions need some updating. The head of the altar guild contacted V. Mortell, a parishioner who had a hand in designing and creating those altar kneelers. She would like to see them maintained and will underwrite that process. Maintaining them is in the works. Within the next month, someone will be coming to pick them up, fix them, re-stuff them, and return them.
b. B. Reiman observes the laminate on the pews is splitting. M. Harris notes the accelerator consultant also noticed this. Repairing them would be quite expensive. J. Jacobs agrees; a lot of repairs have been done, but there might not be much more that can be done short of replacement.
7. Alternate Safe Church training for Brian Moskalik
a. B. Moskalik has already received safe church training through the Catholic Church. The Episcopal Church requires an initial in-person training that can be renewed online. The Vestry can choose to accept B. Moskalik’s safe church training but St. Luke’s would then accept some liability. D. Cooper asks if St. Luke’s liability insurance would cover us if something happen? If we make this decision in good faith, he thinks it would and therefore has no objections. B. Reiman states if B. Moskalik could read over the Episcopal policy that would seem acceptable. B. Moskalik is willing to read that policy. D. Cooper moves
to approve B. Moskalik’s safe church training alternative. B. Solbrig seconds. The motion passes by voice vote. None opposed.
b. See Addendum 4.
8. Additional items, as necessary
a. At the October vestry meeting. B. Reiman tabled his motion on the kitchen remodel project. The kitchen remodel committee gave recommendations and asked that they be approved. The finances are not currently available to put all those recommendations into motion. The motion was to accept the kitchen remodel committee’s recommendation and move forward with the project. The kitchen remodel was part of the original capital campaign; a number of people donated with the expectation that the kitchen would be remodeled. The current estimate for remodeling the kitchen is higher than what was budgeted for and raised in the capital campaign. We also did not know last month how much money was left from the capital campaign; we need to know how much money we have left and how much we need to complete the remodel. B. Solbrig states that we need to be prepared at the annual meeting to present what funds we need, what funds we have, and solicit ideas for how to meet those goals. D. Cooper adds that since our capital campaign said we will do the kitchen, then we need to do it. J. Jacobs points out since we didn’t reach our capital goal, we prioritized our projects. If the financial resources aren’t there and we conclude the capital campaign we’d either have to extend the capital campaign instead of concluding it, start a new capital campaign and consider the kitchen a new project. D. Cooper states that failure to meet donor intent is a major problem under MN law. Rev. J. Chapman states that given the realities of the situation, we need to figure out a way to do the kitchen but we are also constrained by the fact that congregants may be hesitant to give more to make up for the shortfall. We have to do something with the kitchen, so we’ll need to figure out how we bridge the financial shortfall that preserves the integrity of this body and our relationship with the congregation.
b. Given the reality of the situation, how do we talk about this moving forward in a way that has integrity, addresses the challenges of our situation, and also communicates with the congregation that this is something the Vestry thinks is important? D. Cooper offers that we remain committed to finishing all 3 projects and right now are working on determining next steps as we begin the move to phase three. Rev. J. Chapman agrees to write something to that end for the Weekly Lifelines that addresses some of the concerns on the part of people who are getting impatient for the remodel of the kitchen. Rev. J. Chapman validates the immense amount of work this capital campaign has been and how impressive the results have been thus far, especially given the fact that it happened during a time of transition. C. Larsen in particular is thanked for his contributions. M. Harries states we should recognize J. Reiman and the rest of the kitchen committee for their work on the remodel. B. Reiman agrees but says the proposal and the project are what matters, much more beyond personal recommendation. M. Harris ask if it would help communicate intent if we put up samples and information about what the kitchen proposal would look like? Rev. J. Chapman says maybe that’s information that could be shared in the future.
c. S. Parham asks if we know any further information about security cameras? C. Larsen answers that final numbers are not yet in, but the bid is a lot lower than previous bids. The ballpark range is in the $3000-$4000 range; the previous bid had been $15,000.
d. M. Harris states that Faith Formation curriculum has been re-ordered that will stay in sync with the lectionary.
e. C. Larsen reports the kitchen roof will be redone but has been postponed due to weather. An increase in pitch will be added to decrease the freezing on top.
f. Dec. 9th: Young Families will be hosting an Ugly Sweater Party at D. Cooper’s house.
9. Adjourned by voice vote at 20:43.
10. Optional compline
Future Meeting Dates Third Monday of the month at 19:00. December 18 January 15
Addendum 1: Vestry Nominating Committee a. Rev. J. Chapman emailed the Vestry on 6 December, 2017 with the names of 7 people he would
like to appoint to the nominating committee with the Wardens, which per St. Luke’s by-laws are subject to approval from the Vestry.
b. Vestry members approved the seven people whose names Rev. J. Chapman submitted to them via email. None opposed.
Addendum 2: Vestry Member Terms
a. Rev. J. Chapman emailed the Vestry on 4 December, 2017 clarifying the terms of Vestry member service, which are as follows: 1. C.Larsen, Sr. Warden through January 2018 2. B. Moskalik, Jr. Warden through January 2018 3. J. Jacobs, Member through January 2018 4. T. Moskalik, Member through January 2018 5. B. Reiman, Member through January 2018 6. D. Cooper, Member through January 2019 7. J. Martinak, Member through January 2019 8. B. Solbrig, Member through January 2019 9. K. Connelly, Member through January 2020* 10. M. Harris, Member through January 2020* 11. S. Parham, Member through January 2020
b. When M. Harris and K. Connelly were elected, notes indicate they were to fill partial terms, but ECM by-laws do not permit this. If M. Harris and K. Connelly were to serve until January 2020, they would serve for five consecutive years which the ECM bylaws also do not permit. Rev. J. Chapman spoke to the Bishop about this; the Bishop is willing to make an exception for M. Harris and K. Connelly as long as this situation is clearly communicated to the congregation and they also give approval at the annual meeting in January 2018. Both K. Connelly and M. Harris indicated via email that they are willing to serve until January 2020.
c. D. Cooper emails in response that there are other potential modifications to address with St. Luke’s by-laws, including: 1. Modifying the youth rep mandate to allow for cases where we have no qualified and/or
willing candidates. 2. Adding language that specifies a term for the clerk and treasurer - the current language of
Article IV implies that the term length is one year, but it is not stated explicitly. 3. Modify the reference to the "parish newsletter" to reflect that most of our communication to
the memberships is electronic. Addendum 3: Rector’s Report
a. Rev. J. Chapman emailed the Vestry his Rector’s report on 21 November 2017.
Addendum 4: Alternate Safe Church Training for J. Bryant a. Rev. J. Chapman emailed the Vestry on 30 November 2017 informing all members that J.
Bryant has already completed Safe Church training via the Roman Catholic Diocese of Winona. This is a situation similar to that of B. Moskalik. J. Bryant would like to have this alternate Safe Church training accepted by the Vestry, which requires a vote prior to the next meeting, hence the email from Rev. J. Chapman.
b. Vestry members responded to Rev. J. Chapman’s request for a vote on accepting the alternate Safe Training completed by J. Bryant. The vote passes. None opposed.
Vestry Meeting: December 18, 2017; 19:00 hours
In attendance:
Brian Moskalik Tom Moskalik Jane Jacobs Sharon Parham Chuck Larsen Jeffrey Martinak Mike Harris Barbara Solbrig Darren Cooper Kathy Connelly Bert Reiman
Chaired by Rev. Justin Chapman
Agenda:
1. Prayer; opened by Rev. J Chapman at 18:58. 2. Call to order and apologies for absence: none. 3. Approval of minutes; B Reiman moves to approve. B. Solbrig seconds. Minutes
approval passes by voice vote. None opposed. 4. From the December Brief:
a. Accelerator: Phase 2 Discussion i. Rev. J. Chapman: we are now in phase 2 of the accelerator project and the
weekly attendance numbers have stayed high. Do we want to continue with phase 2 of the accelerator project? Discussion ensues regarding the cost of the accelerator phase 2. There are some options that are more expensive, some that are less. B. Reiman moves to approve phase 2 of the accelerator project. M. Harris seconds. Discussion follows regarding the increased turnouts and other benefits that were seen from the accelerator project. Motion passes by voice vote. None opposed.
b. Windows for office doors i. There are no windows in the office doors which is not best practice for
safe churches. Leaving the door open is also not best practice because it impedes privacy. C. Larsen is willing to take on exploring options for new doors. The doors in question are for all of the office doors. C. Larsen will ask for bids and do additional research.
c. Office hours i. K. Gould is to be here 40 hours a week, but also needs time to run errands
if she needs to. Figuring out when that should has proven to be challenging due to varying input. Vestry members do not have a strong opinion regarding this issue. K. Gould is trusted to do her work; if she
needs the occasional errand time that is fine. On the other hand, knowing when the office might be closed ahead of time is also beneficial. Rev. J. Chapman will consult with K. Gould as to her preference.
d. Decisions by Email i. Draft list of rules from Rev. J. Chapman that had been emailed out
previously is discussed. There are considerations regarding the timeliness of replies, objections and votes. Following the Rev. J. Chapman’s recommended rules for now is a decision for which there is consensus. Recommendations will be appended to the minutes. See Addendum 2.
e. Housing Allowance i. Rev. J. Chapman has purchased a home and proposes $50,000 to be set as
his housing allowance. D. Cooper moves to approve. B. Solbrig seconds. The motion passes by voice vote. None opposed.
f. Rector’s report i. Rev. J. Chapman disseminates his business cards to all Vestry members.
There are no questions about the rector’s report. Discussion ensues regarding what printed material should be provided at Vestry meeting, e.g. meeting minutes. The question should be re-visited when new Vestry members join the Vestry.
5. Treasurer’s report a. D. Cooper provides preliminary financial results through the end of November.
Capital campaign balance is still not entirely clear but it will be between $25,000 and $30,000. Budget balances are about as expected. Utilities are much higher than expected; there have been meetings with RPU to rectify this as the primary reason for the high bill has been electricity.
b. Annual appeal: D. Cooper reports last year’s appeal numbers as well as current numbers. There is a substantial shortfall in comparison to the previous year. How to motivate parishioners to get their pledges in is an important discussion to have. Rev. J. Chapman will start doing some following up with people after Christmas. Acknowledgement letters may be part of that following up.
c. New members of the finance committee need to be chosen. B. Solbrig will continue to serve, as will D. Cooper.
6. Additional items, as necessary a. C. Larsen reports on the surveillance camera bids. The electrical and wiring costs
are the most substantial parts. There is still some information outstanding. Another update will be given at the next meeting.
b. The kitchen roofing project is underway. c. A discussion ensues regarding potential financial pathways for paying for the
kitchen remodel project. It is unknown whether those financial pathways will be known before the annual meeting but it would be a positive thing to be able to provide a statement on at that time.
7. Adjourn
a. Rev. J. Chapman moves to adjourn the meeting at 19:53. It passes by voice vote. None opposed.
8. Optional compline
Addendum 1: Nominating Committee
a. The following nominating committee members were nominated by Rev. J. Chapman via email and approved by emailed Vestry vote on December 7, 2017: I. Akogyeram J. Bryant C. Caldwell R. Caldwell B. Decker C. Larsen J. McReynolds
Addendum 2: Guidelines for Vestry Votes Via Email, sent December 14, 2017. 1. Resolutions for email approval must come with the stated support of at least two of the following people: Rector, Senior Warden, Junior Warden, Treasurer, Clerk. 2. In order to pass, email resolutions require a two-thirds majority of Vestry members in office at the last in-person meeting. 3. In order to allow sufficient time for consideration, no vote on an email resolution will be considered final until either:
1) All members have voted; 2) 24 hours have elapsed after the email requesting a vote was sent; or, 3) a motion to table has died for lack of support. 4. Any Vestry member can move that the resolution be tabled until an in-person meeting.
To prevent one-person gridlock, a second member must state their support for tabling the matter. Upon receipt of the second’s statement of support, the matter is immediately tabled to the next in-person meeting, regardless of the votes already tallied. A motion to table has 24 hours from the time of its sending to receive the support of a second; if no second comes within the allotted time, the motion to table dies.
5. Email resolutions, the results thereof, and details pertaining thereto will be listed in the minutes of the next in-person Vestry meeting.
Future meeting dates:
Regular meeting: January 15, 7pm
Annual meeting: January 28, 9am