Return to DESC Workspace Index

From: Annett Inacker Sun 7/16/2006 1:44 PM
Parish:  St. Timothy's, Mt. View

To the DESC team:

Most importantly I want to say thank you to all the representatives on the DESC team and our diocesan leaders. As we all know, there are no easy answers to the challenges our diocese is facing. And the difficulty in coming up with potential solutions is compounded by our diversity: geographic, cultural, and financial. So the fact that the Standing Committee  and Diocesan leaders are willing to tackle these difficult problems, even in the absence of a permanent Bishop, and that the DESC team has been able to distill the many alternatives into 3 structural models and 5 financial models is a very big accomplishment and should be commended!

Below are the specific requests for information and suggestions for improving communications:

Please post the latest structural models (with supporting descriptions) and the latest funding models (with supporting budgets) for review. I'm pulling together a team of Vestry members and delegates at St Timothy's to review all of the options in preparation for the next Deanery meeting. I was not able to find any of the documents on the new website under DESC reports or workspace.

Please also consider developing a "voters guide" for the upcoming convention.  Understanding the structural models and financial models is difficult. Despite all of your efforts to communicate and share information, at convention there are likely to be many uninformed or at least confused delegates. To make things more clear, it would be helpful to distribute a "voters guide" very similar to the voters guides that are developed for state elections. In addition to the structural and financial models, there should be pros and cons for each. And perhaps "letters of support" from parishes. Some of this has already been included in the latest report, but could be expanded with feedback from the discussion at the upcoming meetings.

I also personally feel that the DESC should recommend not only the structural models BUT also the most appropriate financial model for each structure. Although theoretically any financial model could be applied to any structural model, some are clearly not optimal (e.g., a centralized funding model that encourages greater %fair share to the diocese and the decentralized "mission" structure). If delegates are allowed to vote for any and all combinations, I am skeptical that we will arrive at an optimal combination.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Many blessings and prayers as we move forward.

Annett Inacker-Trail
Vestry Member
St. Timothy's Episcopal Church
tel 650 988 8042