Minutes of PCC Meeting held via Zoom on May 1st 2020

TB opened meeting at 10.45am, reflecting on Ss. Philip and James, whose Feast Day is 1^st May and prayed the collect. 

Present were: Tony Bushell (TB), Wendy Pagden (WP), Morag Bushell (MB), Ann Booty (AB) (who left at 12.40pm), John Bonham (JB), Penny Bonham (PB), Mark Claydon (MC), Pamela Higham (PH), David Tibbetts-Chaplin (DT-C), Ravi Natarajan (RN), David Kent (DK) and Clement Arde-Acquah (who arrived at 11.05am and left at 1.10pm). Michael Topple (MT) Non-member taking minutes in absence of Minutes Secretary.

Apologies were received from: John Lemon (JL), Susan Lemon (SL) and Clement Arde-Acquah (CA-A) (who subsequently attended).

DT-C declared interest owing to his being an employee of the church and currently drawing a retainer. 

Minutes of previous meeting (30-i-20) were discussed and agreed as an accurate record. 

Matters arising: 

i) PH thanked TB, MT and the PCC for supporting her application for Funeral Ministry. Her application was approved and she is currently undergoing training via Zoom alongside two others. The tutor is the Rev. Dr Elizabeth Jordan. 

ii) JL raised (in proxy) the matter of hall use as a polling station. Particularly the resolution of the PCC to amend the Hall Hire contract. TB explained that the current hall users would have to agree to the amendment of their contracts. WP suggested that hirers whose contracts come up for renewal should have the resolution added. Action: TB to bring this to the Hall sub-Committee when COVID has passed. 

Report on church since lockdown:

TB presented a report that was sent to the PCC on April 30th. All present reported they had read this document. JB mentioned the Bishop of Chelmsford’s translation to the Province of York, and asked whether we had missed the opportunity to donate to the Bishop’s leaving gift. 

Action: JB to make contact with the leaving gift organiser. 

Resolved by show of hands that the PCC subscribe £50 to the Bishop’ leaving gift. 

TB mentioned the Diocesan Vacancy Committee, whose purpose is to sense the desires of the Diocese in relation to the new appointment. TB invited the PCC to pray for those responsible for making the appointment, and begin to consider what the parish desires in its new Bishop. CA-A arrived at this point. 

TB mentioned his suggestion (found in the report previously circulated) to hold the APCM on October 25th at 12.00noon, should social distancing and isolation measures be lifted by that time. MB reminded the PCC that legislation has been made for the holding of APCMs by end of October. She said that this legislation is being continually reviewed and is likely to be amended if isolation measures are still in place. Resolved by show of hands. 

WP reported on the meeting of the Ministry Team (April 28th via Zoom). The Team (all of whom were present) discussed the streamed services over Facebook Live and using Zoom. She reported large numbers of views and likes, both ‘live’ and recorded. Until now the Ministry Team has endeavoured to maintain the normal pattern of worship for St Albright’s, but the Ministry Team had also considered alternative forms of worship, and propose we have a contemporary and informal afternoon service on second and fourth Sundays. This would begin on May 10th at 4.00pm. 

The Ministry Team also agreed that a weekly letter from the Ministry Team to church family and friends, largely written by the minister who conducted the previous Sunday’s service. The first of these was sent by email and post on April 29th, and members of the PCC reported receiving this. 

Other discussions revolved around a potential home group, and thanks was given for the pastoral work undertaken by PH and others. The Ministry Team were also keen to form an ‘IT Team’, using skills to improve our online presence. 

DT-C asked whether the hope is to continue the afternoon service after lockdown ends. WP confirmed that this was the intention, following the SDF/Pioneering aims to begin new worshipping communities. MB asked whether we could involve the Joshua Obeng-Nyarko who hires the hall for ‘Stanway House of Prayer’ on a Sunday afternoons, and WP promised to follow this up. Action: WP

MB reported on technical solutions to some of the issues with the live services, and these are being dealt with by MB, DT-C and Francis Bushell. 

TB asked the Council to consider how patterns of service may continue after lockdown is lifted. He explained that this is why the Ministry Team were keen to begin the ‘IT Team’. MB suggested that some of our younger members may be invited to be a part of this team, both to make use of their skills and to involve them in the leadership of the church. 

CA-A suggested that, if lockdown was partially lifted, a small group of worshippers could broadcast their services to a wider audience. 

PH reported that she has written and distributed Prayer Diaries, including a personal note with each hand delivered copy. This has resulted in numbers of phone calls.

DT-C asked whether services could be recorded as a matter of course when lockdown is lifted. This was positively received. 

The meeting was paused while DK encountered technical problems

TB reported on the Standing Committee meeting, explaining that there had been a change in the items purchased owing to availability issues. Some items have already been delivered, and one item is marked as ‘delivered’ when it hasn’t been. RN is in discussion with Currys-PCWorld over this issue. 

He also drew the Council’s attention to the decisions of the Standing Committee in re Organist’s renumeration, Parish Share and Hall Lighting. DT-C reported that he had not been aware of the latter two items, and TB apologised for missing DT-C out of the email. 

Pioneer Ministry Report:

WP drew the Council’s attention to her report, previously circulated. In particular, she mentioned the New Worshipping Community diagram. The diagram goes from ‘listening’, to ‘gathering’ and then on to ‘building disciples’. She reported that the first two were well in place before lockdown begun. However, owing to events it has been hard to continue with this. She asked for prayers that the relationships may continue to form and blossom, even while she cannot meet with people in person. 

MC asked how WP is progressing with Lesley Scott-Boutell (Borough Councillor). WP reported she is in contact with Cllr Scott-Boutell, and progress is being made. Lakelands School is going to open in September, but not on the planned site owing to building work delays. Instead they will begin at Stanway Fiveways School, at which TB is a Governor. 

CA-A suggested that WP endeavour to maintain contact with school staff and pupils. He went on to suggest that WP reach out to other schools in the parish. 

MB highlighted the new CofE initiative for schools, schoolteachers and families.

Financial Reports:

The Treasurer (DK) presented the Financial Statements, externally audited and distributed previously. 

DT-C proposed accepting the reports, MB seconded. Carried unanimously. 

WP proposed a vote of thanks to DK for his work and expertise. Agreed unanimously. 

DK explained that monthly reports have been issued as usual. January and February were ‘usual’ months, whereas the effects of lockdown began to be felt in March. The primary concern is income, owing to occasional offices and church collections not taking place. Although standing orders are still being paid, freewill offerings and envelope offerings are not. The Standing Committee has agreed to reduce the Parish Share payment to £1000 for April, and DK provides the Standing Committee with weekly reports. 

DK reported that there is no guarantee that usual weekly givers are continuing to ‘store up’ offerings. Although ideally those with envelopes would be saving their envelopes up, but DK explained we cannot guarantee this is happening. 

TB drew Council’s attention to his Financial Paper (previously circulated). He explained that, if we are to continue paying the Parish Share we will have to make use of some capital funds. TB reported that JL and SL were not in favour of this, though did not give a reason. JB expressed his agreement with JL and SL’s opinion. He explained that the funds are for ‘maintenance and restoration of the church’, and he felt that this is what they should be kept for. TB explained there are two funds, a legacy fund of c£213,000. Although the PCC has previously decided this is for maintenance, there are no restrictions on our use. There is also a hall savings account of c£18,000. He went on to explain that it is not without precedent for the hall to support the church in times of difficulty. 

WP explained she felt Parish Share was a way of giving to the wider church, that it is part of our ministry to the wider church. She explained that St Albright’s has benefitted greatly from other churches’ sacrificial giving over the years. It is not just a question, she felt, of ‘are we going to give them money’, but more ‘how are we going to support ministry in this Diocese’. Although we have earmarked the money for ‘rainy days’, she felt that this is a ‘rainy day’.

MB expressed her agreement with TB’s note and WP’s feelings. She feels that there will be no need to touch the legacy funding, as the proposal is that we use hall income. Hall income has, for some time, been exceeding expenditure. Therefore, she felt we should not see this money as ‘legacy funding’, nor necessarily as ‘capital’, but rather as income that has been wisely stewarded. In the past, when the hall funding has been used to assist Parish Share payment, there has been substantially less in the account. She went on to explain that, in her work as a Church Commissioner, she helps oversee the church’s endowment at a national level. Until recently money was handled in a different way, largely on account of the Diocese’s size, but now they distribute the money on a case by case basis, meaning that the Diocese of Chelmsford has lost out on funding. She felt that, if churches such as ours, decide not to pay Parish Share, we are contributing to the Diocese’s financial problems, leading to more church closures and fewer clergy positions. St Albright’s is also fortunate to have the services of a non Stipendiary minister (TB), and we must acknowledge that we are in a unique and fortunate position. The money that we will decide to either pay or not pay is to finance ministry in places that are unable to afford ministry. 

DT-C expressed his agreement with TB’s letter, and WP’s and MB’s opinions. He said that the parish has a considerably lower Quota than similar parishes, meaning we are being asked for much less than other parishes would be. Even if we were to take money from the legacy fund, this is only meant as a ‘borrow’, and he felt we would be very selfish not to pay the share. DT-C then went on to mention various Parables that he felt support the paying of the Share. AB expressed her agreement with DT-C.

JB reported that charitable organisations in difficulty are likely to receive payments from the Government. He asked whether the church/Diocese qualify in the same way. WP explained that we are not in financial difficulty, and therefore do not qualify. 

MC explained that he supports use of the hall income to make the Parish Share payment, reimbursing this as and when possible. This is not a question of ‘not paying’ the Share, but rather a question of delaying payment.

PH expressed her agreement with WP et al., and encouraged the PCC to make use of the money that we are fortunate to have. Likewise RN agreed to the borrowing of hall funds in this way, and concurred with WP’s opinion. 

DK felt that we should take the money from the legacy account, because they money therein was given without restriction, whereas the money in the hall account is for a specific purpose. DK explained that the Parish Share is £1,945pm, and for now we can borrow from the designated funds (currently standing at £6,000), using the legacy fund to restore that borrowing, and maintaining monthly reviews. 

WP proposed that the PCC pay the full Parish Share. Seconded by DT-C. 

8 in favour, 2 against. Motion carried. 

At this point, AB left the meeting. Before she left, she expressed her general agreement with the below proposal. 

TB then mentioned the proposal for letters written to regular givers. At Clergy Chapter, TB was told that all other parish churches in the Deanery have done this. JL and SL sent representation that they disapprove of this proposal. TB responded by saying the letter is only an explanation of the current financial situation, and would be carefully and sensitively worded. 

MC explained that the proposal was not asking people for more money, but rather offering them other means to make their regular contribution.

DT-C felt that, as long as it is carefully worded according to MC’s explanation, there was no problem with sending the letter. 

DK asked who the letter was proposed to be sent to. TB felt it should go to all on the Electoral Roll, but aimed at those who are unable to give as they ordinarily would. MB asked DK how he would prefer to receive any payments. DK explained he can handle cheques as well as online transfer. 

PH advised Council that the Diocesan website has advice on making payments. She also reports that some of the people to whom she has spoken on the phone are concerned that their money is ‘piling up’. She urged caution in sending letters out to everybody, in case those who are currently giving take offence. 

CA-A urged the letter writer(s) to carefully word the letter, in case recipients feel ‘forced’ to give.

WP thanked those who had shared their opinions, and explained that the PCC have to balance their duties of managing finances with their duty of pastoral care towards the church family. She suggested that the letter be written in terms of thanking those who give, explaining how the finances are looking at the moment, and offering gentle options should people wish to give at this time. She felt this shows no lack of sensitivity, but appraises people of the situation. 

DT-C agreed with all that Wendy said, feeling that people would rather know what is going on than be totally unaware. He proposed a carefully worded letter be written to all regular givers. Seconded by MB. Agreed unanimously - motion carried. 

Action: TB to compose a letter and circulate before sending

APCM Reports:

The PCC was required to approve the APCM reports before they can be presented to the APCM. TB proposed the PCC agree the reports. Agreed unanimously - motion carried. 

JB highlighted typographical issues in the current report. He advised Council that these mistakes would be altered before printing. 

St Andrew’s Hall:

TB reported there has been no sub-Committee meeting since the last PCC meeting. Colin Wren reports that decoration of the toilets and entranceway has been completed, and we are still on course to have the hall decorated in August. He has also repainted the table cupboard. Council recorded their thanks to Colin Wren. 

JB reported on the quotations for the uplighters. Since sending out the original quotations, he has sought quotations for uplighters without remote controls (as these could easily be mislaid). He went on to explain the difference between ‘warm white’, ‘cool white’ and ‘daylight’. 

JB asked Council whether they wished to proceed with wall lighting, and asked whether they preferred dimmable or undimmable lights (the latter being nearly twice the price). Responding to a question from MB, JB explained that these lights are LED based, thereby eco-friendly. 

RN proposed that the main lights are undimmable, but the wall lights be dimmable - at a cost of £1,956 ex VAT. Carried unanimously. 

JB explained that the lights are likely to have a larger footprint than the current lights, meaning there may be no need to repaint the ceiling. However, this, he felt, could be discussed at a later date. He acknowledged that there may be extra cost involved in channeling the cables appropriately.

Action: JB Give the go ahead to the electrician

At this point, CA-A left the meeting. 

Deanery Synod:

PH explained her short report of the previous Deanery Synod meeting. Synod felt that the Vision Plan ‘must go ahead’, and recognised that it is likely that parishes will only be able to have a stipendiary priest if they can afford one. Synod were also keen to explore further lay ministry. There is no further date set for Deanery Synod, nor Diocesan Synod. 

Safeguarding:

TB had nothing to report on this.

Any Other Business:

DT-C reported on the homeless man who spent a few nights in the church porch. As a church we cared for him, and he left no mess or disruption. He felt the matter showed the church in a good light. 

MB spoke on the ‘Green Audit’, information about which she had sent to PCC members. General Synod, in February, passed a motion that the whole CofE should aim to become carbon neutral by 2030. The first thing that parishes are being asked to do is to use an online tool to provide data to the central church; enabling us to review how we ‘live’ as a church. This will allow us to identify ways we can reduce our carbon footprint. MB offered to complete the initial form, acknowledging she might need further information from DK, JB and others. She hoped that we could explore, in the future, how we can reduce our carbon emissions and our costs. WP proposed that MB take the lead in completing the Audit, and that we follow the guidelines to ‘go green’. Agreed unanimously. 

JB reported that the church uses LED lights. He replaces 140w bulbs with 16w bulbs which, although lower wattage, provides an equally impressive lighting. 

MC proposed a vote of thanks to DT-C for all he is doing with his daily hymn. Agreed unanimously. 

Date of next PCC Meeting:

Not decided, and left in hands of Standing Committee. 

TB closed the meeting with The Grace at 1.20pm