![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Unitarian Church Leadership
Sep. 23rd, 2010 10:22 pmI've spent a bit of time over the past couple of weeks as a candidate for chairperson for the Melbourne Unitarian Church. It wasn't an easy decision; the current chairperson is a convivial chap and has a fair knowledge of the subject matter. But he's also been in that role for a very long time, and, it must be said, he has been less than effective at dealing with some real problems that the place is facing that have been raised time and time again for years on end. It became very clear to me that nothing was going to change unless the leadership changed.
The reality is that the Church is stagnating or declining on all metrics one cares to mention (except for website visits). Membership is aging and declining - the "electoral roll" is a mere 47, down from over 60 when I first joined and average attendance at services is around 25-30. There is no effort at all to bring in new blood, and least of all young people - indeed, there is active discouragement. The content of the overwhelming majority of services and the Church journal is largely indistinguishable from a left-wing political club, making even the purpose of the place completely redundant. The organisation is too top-heavy with a maddeningly inefficient bureaucracy and a tightly controlled concentration of power. Over the past three years the Church has recorded constant financial losses and a decline in equity.
I've gone into all this in my election material for those who want more information on the dire straits the organisation is in, along with some very achievable, measurable pledges of my own. Alas, I do not have soft-copies of the rather hostile and personal responses, which are overwhelmingly based on defending the bleak financial record, with the particular the claim that depreciation isn't an issue as it is just a 'paper loss', a claim, I must confess, simply astounds. Mostly however, I cannot fathom what the incumbents stand for. More of the same? It'll become a race to see who dies first; the incumbents or the organisation - and nothing will be left for the future.
The reality is that the Church is stagnating or declining on all metrics one cares to mention (except for website visits). Membership is aging and declining - the "electoral roll" is a mere 47, down from over 60 when I first joined and average attendance at services is around 25-30. There is no effort at all to bring in new blood, and least of all young people - indeed, there is active discouragement. The content of the overwhelming majority of services and the Church journal is largely indistinguishable from a left-wing political club, making even the purpose of the place completely redundant. The organisation is too top-heavy with a maddeningly inefficient bureaucracy and a tightly controlled concentration of power. Over the past three years the Church has recorded constant financial losses and a decline in equity.
I've gone into all this in my election material for those who want more information on the dire straits the organisation is in, along with some very achievable, measurable pledges of my own. Alas, I do not have soft-copies of the rather hostile and personal responses, which are overwhelmingly based on defending the bleak financial record, with the particular the claim that depreciation isn't an issue as it is just a 'paper loss', a claim, I must confess, simply astounds. Mostly however, I cannot fathom what the incumbents stand for. More of the same? It'll become a race to see who dies first; the incumbents or the organisation - and nothing will be left for the future.