Www.oakspiritsanctuary.org



Oak Spirit Sanctuary Board Meeting

Feb. 12, 2017 (Imbolc weekend)

Board in attendance:

Kerry Lynn E.

Darcy H.

Don B.

Steve O.

Stephen M.

George B.

In attendance via speakerphone: Larry B.

Others in attendance:

Johanna G.

“Irish” Mike S.

“Awesome” Mike R.

Mike “the Red” P.

Angela O.

Part 1: Private board meeting

Called to order at 12:45pm

I. Stephen Martin motions to hold regular voice-based meetings (in-person or using conference call/video call technology) to minimize dependence on Facebook as a communication tool. Darcy seconds and all vote yes. Motion passes.

The board discusses proper Facebook etiquette. All board members are members of all OSS FB groups in order to prevent OSS from losing access to a group. However, board members may turn off notifications for any groups they are not actively involved with. Those board members who are actively coordinating groups must share any relevant information with the entire board on the board discussion page.

Kerry Lynn motions to have only board members in the Facebook board member discussion group. Stephen seconds and all vote yes. Motion passes.

II. George Bunyea motions to change OSS from a legal status as a 501(c)3 church to become a non-profit corporation. The rest of the board votes to table this discussion.

II. Johanna joins to discuss the clergy program proposal she submitted in December.

Larry reviews the proposal he made online to remove all hierarchical clergy positions at OSS, to be replaced with a single title of clergy. He motions to enact this proposal. No seconds. Johanna reviews the history of the current clergy program: when Ozark Avalon began, it used a ranked system with cords, as in a Wiccan coven. After the organization decided to ban the position of “High Priestess,” Taz, Susan, Crystal and Johanna worked on a more appropriate clergy system for a large and less hierarchical church, and created the current assistant/associate/full/visiting clergy ranks to reflect not only the different training, but different ability to take on responsibilities of various clergy.

Kerry and Darcy express a desire for the clergy committee to be egalitarian, and all members to have equal votes, regardless of their rank and title. The Head of Clergy should not have ultimate decision-making power above other clergy, but be similar to the head of other OSS committees: responsible for making sure everything gets done, and responsible for communicating committee business to the board. Johanna clarifies that this is also the vision for the position in her proposal, and that the clergy titles do not indicate hierarchy over other clergy members. This is the understanding of the clergy system that will be used for voting on Johanna’s clergy proposal at the open meeting that day.

With regards to Kerry Lynn’s clergy status, Kerry and Johanna agree that she will advance to full clergy status when she completes the OSS Book of Shadows that Taz assigned to her as her final project.

Kerry Lynn would like OSS to start offering general Year and a Day classes as soon as possible on lunar weekends, including with help from outside groups with expertise in relevant topics.

Johanna is currently piloting clergy training classes with a small group of people. Kerry asks if these classes may be opened to the community at large, as several people have asked about participating. Johanna agrees that they may, following the approval of the clergy program proposal, so that she may accurately inform participants of what they are working towards.

Darcy motions to rename the “head clergy” position as “clergy coordinator,” to better reflect the egalitarian organization of the clergy committee and to better distinguish that the position is not a High Priestess equivalent. Stephen seconds, all vote yes. Motion passes.

Johanna requests that the board remove the phrase “being clergy does not necessarily mean expertise in horticulture/land care” from its revisions to the “clergy authorities and restrictions” section of the clergy proposal. All agree. Johanna and the board agree that the clergy may work on a special clergy garden, as in the proposal, as long as the specifics are discussed with the land management committee as the project unfolds. “Advise and consent” remains the role of the board with relation to clergy.

Kerry Lynn would like more outside groups to be involved in leading ritual and classes. Johanna is supportive but expresses concern that OSS clergy and students have access to rituals they would like to lead. Darcy motions that OSS clergy and clergy students are the ones to sign up to be in charge of all OSS rituals (as organized by the clergy committee), but that those clergy/students may then choose to invite and collaborate with outside groups. Kerry seconds. All vote yes. Motion passes.

Part 2: Open Board Meeting

Starts at 2:45pm

I. Darcy motions to accept Johanna’s clergy program proposal, with the modifications added by the board in the online group (attached) and discussed in the meeting with Johanna earlier, and that the board review the clergy program guidelines again in a year and a day. Stephen seconds. All vote yes.

II. Kerry announces that the clergy program classes currently being taught by Johanna are now open to anyone who would like to join, although they are still pilot classes. Mike Sager would like to join.

Kerry motions to start teaching general (non-clergy track) Year and a Day classes once a month, to be recorded and also available online, including with guest teachers. Darcy seconds. All vote yes. Motion passes.

III. Kerry asks for volunteers to help make objects to sell as a fundraiser at Pagan Picnic and to help staff it. Kerry Lynn offers to make dream catchers, Don offers to make stave, Angela offers books, and the OSS t-shirts are also available.

Kerry motions that OSS get a vendors’ table at Pagan Picnic, and volunteers to donate the $85 fee. Darcy seconds, on the agreement that OSS is not paying for this on credit, and all vote yes. Motion passes.

IV. Steve motions to confirm that Johanna Givens is the official Clergy Coordinator. Darcy seconds. All vote yes. Motion passes.

V. Steven Martin volunteers to write a story for the Haunted Forest project, and commits to provide an outline by two Sundays from this date. Angela O’Dell would also like to be added to the planning committee.

VI. Stephen Martin motions to provide information about Oak Scouts at Ostara to help the program move forward. Kerry and Stephen agree to meet and plan for the continuance of Oak Scouts.

VII. Steve reminds the board that we will need to put aside money from each festival this year to get us through next winter.

VIII. Don wants to rent a backhoe and fill in some of the erosion on the Lake Gaia dam, using his own money. Johanna reminds us that other Renaissance Ridge landowners are obligated to contribute to maintenance. Kerry reminds Darcy that we need to send a letter to those landowners billing them for their share of gravel on the driveway. Someone also suggests that Union Pacific railroad should possibly contribute to dam improvements, to prevent their tracks from being damaged. Don has been trying to contact the Army Corps of Engineers for advice or help with the dam, and will continue to do so.

IX. Mike Sager would like to organize physically improvements to the main ritual circle by: shifting the circle approximately 4.5 feet southeast so that the burr oak tree is the proper north point, rather than inside the circle; replacing the current posts around the circle with cedar posts that also serve as torch holders; and replacing the entryway and decorating the entryway with runes.

Kerry Lynn motions to approve the improvements Mike has named at the meeting, with the conditions that 1, this plan be submitted in writing, and 2, that members of the community and the clergy committee are informed and involved in the plan, including the choice of runes on the entryway. Don seconds. All vote yes. Motion passes.

There is interest in creating new circle spaces, deeper in the property, as alternatives to the main community circle. There are already other circle spaces on the property that have been neglected. It is suggested that one of the upcoming work weekends be dedicated to improving these existing neglected circles.

Kerry motions to adjourn. Stephen seconds. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 3:28pm.

ATTACHMENT: Summary of board modifications to Johanna’s clergy proposal

(As determined in online board discussion group; summary was posted Feb. 2, 2017)

START OF SUMMARY

First of all, many of us were impressed by the extensiveness, thought, and collection of many years of OSS/OA practices evident in this proposal. It is an important process for us to discuss our clergy program in a coherent, systematic way, so thank you very deeply, Johanna.

There was a big gamechanger in the conversation, which may impact the form of the whole proposal. We have not reached consensus on this question. Larry questioned the entire hierarchical system of clergy, and whether we ought to have the distinctions of “head,” “full,” “assistant,” “visiting” clergy, etc. He suggested we simply have the egalitarian title of “clergy” for everyone, with equal voting on a committee. (We would keep students and classes, and praises the work Taz and Johanna have put into developing the clergy classes). He believes the current system creates hierarchy, resentment, dischord, and is worried about concentration of power. What is the difference between “head clergy” and Rose’s “High Priestess” days? Folks suggested that those with more experience can still offer guidance in a less formal way.

Others felt that power stuggles and drama aren’t caused by the hierarchical clergy system, but individuals’ failings. They feel that it might be harmful to abandon the differentiated roles, which are familiar and provide some guidance, and that have different roles makes sure things get done.

One compromise suggested was that we get rid of all junior/senior clergy disctinctions, but keep head of clergy, who makes sure things get done. This version of “head of clergy” would be more akin to a committee head, like “Head of Land Management”, rather than implying greater spiritual qualifications.

As stated, this would be a big change in thought, and we do not have a consensus yet on this. We may need to continue with current practices until a plan for transition could be detailed.

Before discussing Larry’s proposal, we discussed the entire clergy guidelines proposal! Here are some of the responses that came up, section by section:

I. Faith Statement: Everyone mostly supports the current form of the faith statement. Larry disagreed with the wording of the Rede, as he prefers the complete longer form; however, other board members prefer the flexibility of the short form.

II. Clergy requirements:

*The requirement for a drug-related felony to be 5 years in the past raised concern, especially if it were to be a felony tied to marijuana. It was suggested that this be addressed on a case by case basis, something that should be revealed and discussed, but possibly acceptable if the person has stayed clean and shown ethical, responsible community behavior and self-improvement.

*One person suggested a 3-year term limit (not sure if this was meant for all clergy, or specifically head clergy)

III. Clergy Guidelines: Everything here sounds great!

IV. Roles and Responsibilities: Many liked the descriptions of the roles, however, there was concern that some of the roles listed here would require specialized training/education/ even licenses. There is also an impossible amount of work for a volunteer clergy to take on! It would only make sense, potentially if either 1, this is considered a description of the multifaceted roles a clergy person should be prepared/willing to handle if they come up, even unplanned. Or, 2, it could be a goal that each of these roles is being addressed by at least one of the clergy members on the team, as it grows

V. Clergy Authorities and Restrictions:

*We wanted to clarify that non-clergy members should also be able to (and are needed to) care for shrines/altars, although any major rededications/overhauls should include clergy.

*Plantings are awesome and should be encouraged! However, anything planted anywhere on the land needs to go through land management, as being clergy does not necessarily mean expertise in horticulture/land care.

*More conversation is needed on the clause that “In extenuating circumstances, clergy is authorized to intervene in breaches of the Natural Laws or in emergency situations to protect the community or church and represent OSS.” Some disagreed, saying that role lies exclusively with the board. Others felt the key clause was “in extenuating circumstances,” and that the clergy is already acting as a representative of the church.

VI. Clergy stages, qualifications and obligations

*Some felt that any clergy must already have Oak Spirit status (not merely be pursuing it) to qualify

*There was concern with the clause that students may not conduct ritual outside OSS, if it means that students who have already been leading ritual under their own name for years would no longer be able to continue their practice. It should be stipulated that students may not perform as specifically OSS clergy (unless senior clergy is involved).

* The question of who gets free entrance and when came up (it is explicitly mentioned that visiting clergy do not here). One person suggested Clergy of any kind should be allowed free entrance ONLY when they are on duty, but not if they are not actively providing Clergy services at that event. If they are getting comped for being on duty, there should be clear agreements on what hours they are on duty and expectations re: sobriety. (I am not sure if there were other suggestions elsewhere; there have been mixed opinions on comping in the past).

GENERAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSAL:

*Several people mentioned concern that this is too much work for most clergy volunteers.

George suggested that there should be many fewer conditions, which could be boiled down to “advise and consent. The Clergy advices the BOD and they in turn either consent or not...The care of the spiritual needs of the community, be responsible to that community and do this always in love is the job of the Clergy. If the BOD has real evidence this is not the case, with full Clergy defense as to why they should not be removed, it remains the BOD's responsibility that the Clergy is living up to the responsibility to the community at large. “

*Although no specific traditions were mentioned, some folks were concerned about the idea that “this is the way OA/Rose set up our traditions” may still be part of our rationale for holding certain traditions. They felt that Rose’s magickal practices (e.g., Redbud) have been proven to be unethical, and we should feel free to toss anything that has no rationale other that Rose set it up that way.

Some were confused by the labels of “junior” or “senior” clergy, as they have not been used before (i.e., they are different from our familiar labels of associate, assistant, full, etc)

The descriptions of the traditions and the classes look good!

END OF SUMMARY

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download