St Mary's

• Subject to Board approval
• Provision for junior members
• 2 out of 10

• Subject to Board approval
• Tiered/Categories:

1. Full membership
2. Associate membership
3. Open to interested parties

• Relationship between tiers – allows for voice of individuals
• Avoid Constantine’s model (pyramid)
• Membership for under 18s
• Flat organisation to accommodate inclusiveness
• 8 out of 10

• Say 10-20 members including Board members
• Subject to Board approval
• Careful with restrictiveness
• Criteria may need to be relatively loose
• 0 out of 10

General comments/concerns:

• Concern re use of “tiered” structure:

• • Suggestive of pyramid
  • Categories perhaps as preferred description

• 8 out of 10 preferred Categories/Tiered membership

Group 2 – Contact: Sarah 0437 260 571

• Pros – inclusive, builds up trust, communication
• Cons – difficult to manage, because may join for incorrect reasons (more work for Board)

a)    Full financial membership

b)    Supporters/Associate membership

• Pros

a)    active, committed, vote, passionate, pay a fee, and or ? contribute skills and time, base for future succession plan

b)    no fee, no vote, but can register/email/newsletter, come to meetings (can be time poor)

• Cons – some may feel excluded because not inclusive, no vote etc

• Restrictive to i.e. 20 members
• Not a good option, but easy for Board to manage

General comments/concerns:

1.    Doing a skills survey across the community – to assist the Board, what do each of us have to commit

2.    Like this resolved as soon as possible

3.    This is what St Mary’s is about – a document

Group 3 – Contact : Jude Larking 3392 7659

• Subject to Board approval
• Worry about Board approval being used as control mechanism to reject “stirrers” or win PC?

• Will the Board decide everything in the FAITH COMMUNITY?
• Board’s control should be legal
• Not much support. Suggested levels as in the old Catholic structure
• What is the contingency plan if we lose Peter and Terry?

• Is there too little communication between Board and faith community?
• Who decides faith community roles?
• More openness wanted
• Time limit on Board

General comments/concerns:

• Rolling Board so intellectual knowledge is not lost
• Time limit on board eg. 2 years
• Board is there for guidance and management in areas of legal and money
• The faith community is an entity and from the faith community come leaders in all other matters
• Separate the 2
• Think of Board as separate from CEO, management and those who ?
• AGM announced
• Open to 7 subject to Board appeal, ie qualifications, background, faith community. This with change and so will review of qualifications.
• “Rite of appeal” to the whole community if a person’s application for membership is vetoed by the Board for internal prejudicial reasons

Group 4

• Over 18  - subject to Board approval
• Against

• • Too many cooks?
  • Potential for undermining strategies

• For

• • Inclusiveness
  • Empowerment

Note from group’s scribe: about half of our group seemed to go for this option, but it was far from clear. I believe there was some confusion between “faith community” and “membership”

• Against

• • Perception of exclusiveness among some members of group

• For

• • Working well for Micah
  • Inclusive
  • Capacity for consultation – community input

Note from group’s scribe: this option gets my no. 1 vote

• Against

• • Perception of exclusiveness

• For

• • Protection against vulnerability to white-anting

Note from the group’s scribe: this wasn’t the majority decision but it gets a vote from me – a close second after option 2

General comments/concerns:

Group 5

• Disadvantage would be danger of being taken over by a hostile group

• Danger of someone being elected to Board who does not represent interests of community
• 10 -20 members is fine as long as members do not slide – maintain these numbers so Board can be continually renewed

• Full
• How would distinction be made between full and associate ?membership?
• Can meetings beside AGM be called?
• Board must come from members
• Is there a roll of members?
• Need for criteria re acceptance of membership

• Supported as high possibility, rigid/hostile group/individuals would be avoided
• Mechanisms needed to facilitate a process of communication between Board and community

General comments/concerns:

• No proxies at AGMs
• Board expected (?) to hold special meetings to discuss very important decisions which have to be soon attended to

Group 6 – Contacts: Camille Furtado 0437 183 401, Alison Ferrier 3846 7926

• Could go off the rails
• Feels unprotected
• Our group says no
• A lot of trust is needed

• Has merit
• People who want to be involved and engaged can be and people who just want to be part of the faith community can be associate members of the company
• Largely positive feeling in the group
• Important to get criteria right
• Cluster groups? – we didn’t discuss but keen to see how this would operate

• Certain people would nominate and 10-20 are voted in as members?
• Who has the voting rights?
• Given the nature of the way decisions have been made about the future of the community in the past, if we use this model people could be left out of the loop and not included. Cloak and dagger. Other side of that is how the people who are involved really have a vested interest in running of community
• Low involvement, no voice
• Does Option 2 become unwieldy

General comments/concerns:

• What happens to the pastoral care of the community?
• The machinations of these 3 options are going to impinge on the faith community
• Elections need to be held over successive weekends to get across the membership of the faith community
• Clusters involved in committees or on Board
• Does membership happen yearly, monthly, fortnightly, weekly?
• Is there a membership fee?
• Does membership mean you don’t have to ‘put money in the plate?
• The faith community needs further discussion and also needs work on how decisions should be made

Group 7

• Open – non-restrictive
• Pros

• • Non restrictive

• Cons

• • Possibility of the Board being taken over by people without the best interests of the faith community

Pros

• Gives power back to members of the
• community

Cons

• Should be open
• Not big enough to have a tiered model
• Could be more selective of who can be a member of the community

Pros

• Members who are representatives of the various groups within the community eg. cluster groups

Cons

• Way to stack the Board
• May not represent the faith community

General comments/concerns:

Community and Board:

• Peter and Terry cannot be on both entities
• No voting rights on the Board
• Who signs the cheques?

Group 8 – Contact: Brian O’Hanlon 3397 8250

• 2-3 years: Preference for Option 3

• Uncomplicated feedback to members from faith community
• Board skills – able to hire and fire
• Extension into use of cluster representation
• Model 1 lots of criteria for membership?

General comments/concerns:

Group 9 – Contact: Pat Ryan 3374 1660

Too dangerous, vulnerable to take-over.

Would tiered level be open to become hierarchal?

• Tiered sounds great with everyone in the faith community should be associate members. Can contribute but no voting rights.
• Full Membership – Annual community meeting or meetings could propose those who want to become full members be approved as regular members of the faith community and have then full membership of the company
• Condition – continuing membership of faith community
• We need to be made aware of all the ways money is spent so that the company finances are open and detailed enough to be meaningful

General comments/concerns:

Since the Board will continue as is, the faith community needs to be better informed on how they can be approached and the faith community can be made aware of what is going on. The faith community does need to know that the money is being spent well. They have to be transparent and detailed if people are to be generous in their monetary support.

Group 10

Open to hijacking

• Preferred model
• More involvement possible by more “members” with voting rights
• Board to somehow vet membership
• Gives option for various levels of involvement
• Anyone an associate
• Full membership (Board eligible) – willing to adopt rights and responsibilities
• Clear explanation of this model – roles etc, levels of membership, $

• Current model
• Not democratic enough (this time!)
• Necessary for 2011 – increased communication with community – regular reports

General comments/concerns:

• Sabotage – Option 1
• Branch stacking – Option 1
• Lack of communication re this process during 2009/2010
• Tiered:
  • How can membership still be
  • monitored?
  • Clear outline of levels of membership and $ etc
• Cluster groups source of representation/consultation
• Cross representation of community to keep “business” grounded in what community professes to be about
• Role of Board members?
• Next AGM before Dec 2011?
• Tiered model – quorum requirements?
• How does faith community influence/control administration – i.e. consultation process

Group 11 – Contacts: Paul and Lynda Roberts 3355 1709

Option 2: Tiered membership

Option 3: Restrictive membership

General comments/concerns:

Points for discussion:

• Board – Community Cluster representation on a rotational basis
• Skills for Board members – communication, committed members of community – financial members of community, business skills, legal skills
• Board meetings to be videoed and streamed to members of community
• Range of membership – vetted by Board – Tiered model (Option 2)
• One person in our group wants baptised Christians on Board as members
• Decent human beings from the faith community – rational, honest, compassionate etc
• How can we stop Opus Dei from infiltration?

Individual comment:

• Company needs a strong involvement of faith community as Board has financial powers i.e. to spend monies which come almost exclusively from the faith community. Therefore, there is a very close link between the company and the faith community.
• Budget currently has over 50% on wages. Virtually no surplus – what happens if we have to pay rent in the future?

Group 12

General comments/concerns:

• Elections held over specific ? at each Mass
• Board needs to reflect on the diversity of the community
• Open membership with criteria for voting eg. membership of community for a period of about 12 months
• Gate keepers…
• Still some discussion re restricted
• Some support for both Options – Open/Restricted – not Option 2