DENA



Mission Executive CouncilSeptember 19-20, 2016 MeetingLincroft, NJEx-Officio members present: Br. Dennis Malloy (absent and excused for Monday am), Maryann Donohue-LynchMembers present: Br. Jack Curran (absent and excused for part of Monday am to attend the District Council meeting), Ross Fales, Lois Harr, Jim Logan, Br. Ernest Miller, Peggy Perkins, Charles Stembler, Ben Ventresca, Alan Weyland (Executive-Director)Members absent and excused: Bob Scott, Bill WolffGuests:Br. Ed Phelan (part of Monday am and all of Tuesday am)Marisa Guerin (facilitator), Erin George and Jerry Gumbleton (Plante-Moran) for Monday pm Joint SessionRecording Secretary:Br. John GuasconiMonday, September 19 (Alumni Hall of Christian Brothers Academy)1. Meeting convened at 8:27 am with:a) Welcome by Alan Weyland who noted that there are two openings on Council – both from the Lasallian Association for Elementary and Middle Schools.b) Prayer by Maryann Donohue-Lynch2. Review of May 2-3, 2016 Minutes: Motion: To approve the minutes of the May 2-3, 2016 meeting. (Harr-Logan).Approved unanimously.3. Agenda ReviewA. For Monday:a. Review of By-Laws (to be conducted by Jim Logan) in context of the Plante Moran (P-M) report.b. Review of the P-M report.c. Standing Committee sessionsd. Joint meeting with the District Council in the afternoon.B. For Tuesday:a. Consideration of District’s Distinguished Lasallian Educator Award nomineesb. Debriefing of the Monday meeting with the District Councilc. Reports from the Visitor, Executive Director, and Associate Executive DirectorAfter the above review, the Mission Executive Council: General Reports dated September 20, 2016 was distributed.4. By-Laws Review done section by section under direction of Jim LoganPurpose of review is to raise questions and concerns taking into account the P-M report and in advance of joint meeting with the District Council this pm.Keep in mind the newly established CIAMEL (International Council for Association and the Lasallian Educational Mission).Article II (Purpose)-Section 2:idea of “assist and support the Visitor.”-Section 2G:how do the 2 Councils work together – needs explanation; do 2 Councils working together deal more with Office of Mission and Ministry (OMM).-Shared Responsibility – with whom / what office – is unclear. “On a consistent basis” deals with 2D and also 2F – does it apply more to OMM? Some elements contained don’t lend themselves to “consistent.”-Is it possible to combine Sections 2 (Areas of Shared Responsibilities) and 3 (Duties)?Article III (Membership)-Section 1 point C – be attentive to wording and update it-Point D – the selection of MEC members has not fully materialized as originally hoped for. Evolution has to be taken into account. Notion of ‘at-large’ membership – question of constituency being represented and voted for: it is the entire District, broader perspective.Article IV (Officers)-Section 1B: refer to P-M reportArticle VI (Committees)-Are present committees in line with definition given? Are present points listed always followed?-Language vis-a-vis reality.-‘Time element’Article VII (Lasallian Associations)-Deals with interactions – relationships – are these the reality?-Section 4.A – the Council’s relationships with these Associations.-Needs significant review taking reality and experience into account.-Section 2 (Structure), B & C – expectations are of the Associations, not MEC. What should be the relationship? Question of reality being dealt with.Articles VIII, IX, X-In regard to Article IX should “local grievance” be defined?In moving forward, keep in mind that amendments have to be approved by the Visitor5. Review of Plante-Moran ReportFocus: MEC-DC Relationship. How do we deal with recommendations made as we look to the future, taking into account possible restructuring?A. General Overall Impressions:-Reference to point 4 of Executive Summary – what is the ‘authority’ of an advisory board?-Inclusive, large number of challenges – relational aspect – good opportunity to evaluate today’s reality and move forward after 7 years of experience.-Affirmation of great strides made over the 7 year time period.-Reference made to charts of P-M Report: p. 16 Potential Considerations for Adjustment...; p. 34 Administrative Observation; p. 35 Administrative Office Staffing Comparison of North American Districts.-P-M played back what we live out – provides good starting point to be creative.-Would have been helpful to have ‘projections’ of lay partners in the future just as was done for the Brothers, as well as the current number of lay partners (and people directly served).-Lack of clarity regarding role of MEC – contact is the OMM.-Affirmation of District “on leading edge.”-Complimentary but puts onus on MEC. MEC looked forward to some more concrete suggestions / recommendations.-Question arises as to are we truly representative - possibility of a more proportional representation of constituencies, district ministries.-Reference made to data collection on bottom of p. 5 and top of p. 6-Challenge: how are our present relationships / lines of communication strengthened?-P-M logical building step as we come up with a strategic plan looking to the future. Refer p. 4 last paragraph – referred to as ‘pioneers.'B. Specific Reactions:-Reference to p. 22 Mission Executive Council – Reflections from the Survey Process – advocacy aspect.-Reference to p. 22 (cf. section noted in previous bullet) – visibility – is local level as aware as it could be of MEC role. Also challenge of getting Board Chairs and Boards to understand where they fit into bigger picture. Importance of information and education.-Role of MEC and OMM to get ministries interacting with each other.-Distinguish between Information – Education – Formation – need for all three – their role.-Reference to pp. 17-18 Consideration for Modifications to District Structure – charts regarding new offices – what are their roles? -Question raised regarding OMM doing both information and accountability – is it reasonable for OMM to do both?-What is need for additional ‘offices’? Not necessarily as structures but as assistance.-‘Purple’ or ‘middle’ section is mostly being done by the 2 people in OMM.-Current structure does not support what is needed – additional resources are needed to accomplish what we desire.-What can / should MEC say in regard to the above area.-Reference to p. 8, point 10 – what is being asked – is there an alignment of offices mentioned.-Reference to p. 30 Chief Administrators Survey Feedback – modifying mission assessment process.-Relational aspect is very important – what do we see as we move forward and clarify district level – ministry level piece / dynamic.-What is level of quantification (was it 1 or 2 persons, small group?)?-What is level of validation?-P-M is offering ‘creative’ possibilities vis-a-vis creation of new offices as we are ‘out there’ – financial implication of recommendations offered.C. Tomorrow’s discussion will be based on our discussion of By-Laws, this afternoon’s exchange with DC and lead us to consider what do we do next. Hoped for result would be to outline a plan of action.Break 10:30 – 10:45 am6.Standing Committees meet from 10:50 am to 12:00 noon.7.Standing Committee ReportsA.Education and Formation for Association and Mission-Presentation of possible candidates for District’s Distinguished Lasallian Educator award.-Conversation regarding the John Johnston Institute which will take place next summer (2017).B.Lasallian Mission-Approval of 3 covenants: Tides Family Services, La Salle Academy (NYC) and La Salle School (Albany). This latter covenant approval had been tabled at May meeting due to question dealing with “reserve powers.” Has now been clarified.MOTION:That the Covenant with La Salle School – Albany be approved. (Ventresca - Harr). Approved unanimously.MOTION:That the Covenant with Tides Family Services be approved.(Logan – Fales). Approved unanimously. MOTION:That the Covenant with La Salle Academy – New York Citybe approved. (Fales – Miller).Approved unanimously.-Collection of quantifiable and qualitative data regarding engagement with the poor. -a) Statistical data beyond that of the annual Regional Report focusing on high schools and Miguel schools – would enable analysis will be discussed at LASSCA. -b) Qualitative – reference Lasallian Mission Assessment. Biggest change would be to look at 3 directional statements through the lens of the 5 goals rather than only looking at the 5 goals. Very good response to this. What are you doing really well? What has to be worked on would also include a response. Qualitative report would consist of a number questions reported for 5 year period – would provide information to visiting team.-Data is not being asked for information already provided. Question is being asked as to how this will be phased in. Session adjourned at 12:17 pm.JOINT SESSION WITH DISTRICT COUNCILSession convened at 1:30 pmThe afternoon session was a combined session of theDistrict Council and the Mission Executive Council(Christian Brothers Academy, Lincroft, NJ, Alumni Hall)September 19, 2016The two Councils met to discuss observations, considerations, and recommendations from the DENA Organizational Structure Review conducted by Plante Moran. The Plante Moran report is dated September 2, 2016.Brother Dennis Malloy began with an overview/history of the Mission Executive Council. He then introduced Marisa Guerin, PhD, facilitator of the afternoon session, and representatives from Plante Moran, Jerry Gumbleton and Erin George.Gerry’s and Erin’s presentation highlighted:The assessment was built on a DENA structure that was in place and had been done well.The assessment builds on strengths that already exist; the DENA organizational structure appears to be ahead of most religious orders – DENA is a pioneer in this area.The assessment is an evaluation of a “lived” experience and it builds on momentum underway, looking at what next steps need to be taken.There were two major recommendations:Further define how the Mission Executive Council (MEC) is connected to other District structures based on the District’s experiences to date – What is the MEC about? What is the scope of MEC responsibility?Creation of an “Office for the Future of the Mission and Charism” that would move the District into the future.Marisa Guerin then recorded questions from the audience on newsprint:Why create an Office for the Future of the Mission and Charism? Why not have the MEC do what is being requested from the Plante Moran report?If the MEC became an office, how would it contribute more? An office would be the driving force for what could be in the future.How would creating a new office be perceived by others/other groups, including reactions from current administrators?How critical is the interaction between the District Council (DC) and the MEC?As administrations change, and as members having a “long history” with the Brothers move on or retire, how does this model address the need to put Lasallian education structures into place for those who will be in ministry in the future?What was the focus of the study – Office of Mission and Ministry (OMM)? District Council alone? Mission Executive Council alone? Senior Brothers? Or some combination of these?Plante Moran presenters responded to the questions with input from the DC and MEC members:The study looked at the MEC and how it functions with the Office for Mission and Ministry, the District Council, and Senior Brothers, but it did not focus on specific offices that exist in Eatontown.Plante Moran is not trying to be prescriptive, but rather illustrative, in pointing out that the new Office for the Future of the Mission and Charism be created. However, every Lasallian also has responsibility for mission and charism.A question was posed: Why not refocus the current Office for Mission and Ministry, which has a lot to do with the present, instead of creating a new office? It was felt that this would put two different functions in one already existing office. The Office for the Future of the Mission and Charism is meant to be more visionary and would need its own focus. If both were in one office, one focus could be diluted.Although interaction between the DC and MEC is important, the future needs to be considered also. Who comes after this generation of Lasallians, Brothers and Partners? The current group of Brothers and Partners needs to put structures in place to address this. There must be a focus on integrating the future of mission and charism in terms of future administrators. What structures need to be put in place to enable future administrators and others active in the ministry?What does it mean to say MEC would have more to contribute? At present, MEC has to clarify its role – Is it visionary? Is it a sounding board? Should it function more strategically as a body? Does it need to be more proactive?It was pointed out that the MEC is a new entity that is still finding itself. The DC has a 300+ year history. So these two groups must work collectively into the future.Marisa asked the audience to respond to these questions: What important findings from this report resonate with my experience? Are there points in the report that should be underlined?Below is a summary of the responses:We need to communicate the work of the MEC to a wider audience.Does the composition of the MEC reflect the demographic make-up of the District?We must understand the importance (centrality) of what brings Brothers and Partners together.There must be a commitment to formation for the future. When Brothers and first and second generation Partners diminish, more exacting accountability will be needed. This is seen as coming from two separate arms: sponsorship covenants PLUS formation for mission and charism for the future. But these must be two separate entities, hopefully creating a healthy tension – a dynamic tension of unity with diversification. Good communication will be critical.A sense of vision is needed as well as an openness to different ways of living out the Lasallian charism.A challenge: know where we are today, where we are going, and how to get there. The “what” often resonates, though the “how to” is a question.It was suggested that Office of Lasallian Formation would be more inclusive than Office of Brother Formation.What is the passion for 2016 with regard to the future and visioning? What is the passion for young people and how do we bring this into the future?After a brief break, the group assembled for Table Discussions addressing: What are the implications of the report for the Visitor and Leadership Team, the Mission Executive Council, and the District Council?IMPLICATIONS FOR THE VISITOR AND LEADERSHIP TEAM:Many, perhaps most, Lasallians, and Brothers in particular, are unaware of the smaller relative staffing numbers in the DENA office compared with the other two Districts.While it is recognized as imperative to promote charism and mission, can it be done without creating a new “office”? How can Brothers be won over to this concept?There was a discussion of the overarching “maintenance and mission” question. How can we best maintain the charism and mission and move into the future? Mission is key across the board, so it is not just the purview of the OMM, but of all Lasallians.In order to pay attention to visioning, philosophizing, and futuring, restructure current reporting and sharing of information. Use the MEC and DC differently.Keep operations simple by avoiding duplication.How does the Visitor want the advisory aspects of DC and MEC to operate for him?So that we don’t look like we are simply expanding administration, have current members of DC and MEC form a group to address Mission and Charism – new committee from existing people.Do you have to do the same things at every institution? Differentiate those who are struggling and need more attention from those who are doing OK and need less attention.Does the District have the time and personnel to truly help the struggling?IMPLICATIONS FOR THE MISSION EXECUTIVE COUNCIL:It was reiterated that MEC is in its infancy compared to DC, thus its purpose and function is unfolding.As an advisory body to the Visitor, what is the MEC’s relationship with him vis-à-vis the OMM?It seems at present, the work of MEC has been to plan and execute the Mission Assembly, be apprised of the Directional Statements, and assist with LMAP covenants. Should MEC members’ experience and talent be better tapped? Could MEC have been more proactive, better utilized in averting some recent crises at some secondary schools? For example, one MEC member’s talents have been used to assist with board formation and mentoring of chief administrators.MEC needs to have an impact such that administrators agree upon something and then they bring it back to their schools.Review MEC bylaws as a way of clarifying relationships and alignment that is not well known.Publish MEC meeting minutes to Brothers and chief administrations as does the DC.The relationship among OMM, MEC and chief administrators is unclear beyond MEC is advisory to the Visitor. The relationship between MEC and OMM has to be better defined.We seem to be losing sight of Lasallian Excellence in Education as energy goes to the OMM visits which involve a great deal of preparing, giving, and discussing reports.IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT COUNCIL:What are the implications on how the DC operates? Do members simply listen to reports?Invite membership in the District to submit agenda topics for the meetings.Provide input to the District on current issues.Should the composition of the DC be smaller?Members are elected to the DC and appointed to the MEC.DC needs to consider what its role is with the MEC.Marisa elicited the entire group’s reactions to the individual table discussion reports to the large group:What practical implications can be implemented NOW?It is a good idea to ask MEC to look at how they see their role.From today’s discussion, although dualistic, we must remember that we are ONE: MEC, DC, Brothers, and Partners. It is an ongoing process to try and balance what is separate and what needs to be integrated.A better job of internal marketing is needed; DC to MEC; Visitor to DC and MEC; Brothers to DC and MEC.It is hoped that MEC can have greater ownership for its agenda and role, and that both the MEC and DC can send agenda items to each other and work together in addressing issues.The NEXT STEPS: How is all that is being treated today to be communicated to future leadership? We must have clarity among ourselves in order to pass this along to future generations. Are we going to be about maintenance or mission?Jerry and Erin responded to the afternoon session:The central organizing focus must be passion for Mission and Charism; this bigger picture must remain in view.The future of Mission and Charism is more important than the institutions themselves.We must not be limited by structural and organizational perspective.Brother Dennis Malloy responded to the afternoon session:Mission and Charism are the key to the future; we need to have conversations among core groups who are passionate for Mission and Charism; we need people who can effect change.We need to know what wisdom the two other US Districts gained from their reconfigurations.Chief administrators need to be pulled into discussions in some way; they are absent from the picture.In “unpacking” the Plante Moran report, roles of MEC and DC must be more active; ad hoc groups of DC, MEC and chief administrators must be used.Incremental change alone cannot effect real change.We are moving into a significant moment of change in DENA . . . the first change of a Visitor.We must realize that there is unity in our diversity.Tuesday, September 20(Fleming Hall)1.Meeting convened at 8:15 am with Prayer led by Maryann Donohue-Lynch.2.Presentation and Discussion of Distinguished Lasallian Educator nominees- 5 nominees were proposed. -Among the factors considered were nominees’ experience related to theme of Huether Conference (commitment to new poverties and commodification), nominees as persons of faith and role of zeal in their commitment, understanding and living out of Lasallian spirituality.-After discussion, the three voted for (in alphabetical order) were:1. Jennifer Edwards Robinson (Manhattan College, New York City)2. Anthony Shilen (St. Joseph’s Collegiate Institute, Buffalo)3. Kate Ward-Gaus (La Salle University, Philadelphia)This should remain confidential for the time being.3.Plante-Moran Review in light of Monday’s Joint Session with the District Council (DC) – conducted by Jim LoganA. Sharing of Impressions-Mission and charism are central.-‘Raising up’ of MEC’s profile across the District, better knowledge and sense of MEC.-Greater clarity of role and importance of MEC’s role / relationship between MEC, DC and chief administrators – how is this addressed as we look and move forward?-Importance of ‘long (future) view’ at the ‘moment’ (i.e. present time).-Another body that matters and is significant are Board Chairs.-Board Chairs as members of MEC (more than the one we have now)-Issue of Boards is an ever-growing matter of importance.-Organizationally, where is the MEC going? – are we here to implement or provide insight vis-a-vis District leadership? –visibility of MEC has to be raised.-MEC wants to assist but clarity as to role necessary.-Input to next Visitor is of importance.-How does MEC move beyond balance between maintenance – future?-Concern: dis-engagement of chief administrators (ex: only 21 of 36 chief administrators responded to P-M study).-Importance of formation and accompaniment of chief administrators. as well as participation of Boards and Board Chairs-What are short term things we can appropriately do to change – question: what is the right model? / composition at the present moment – process of selection or election of membership.-Concern: secondary school administrators – this area has most students and staff.-Look at what works in other districts. -Reference made to summary of recommendations – cf. panel 2.-MEC needs sense of its ownership.-How are we empowered vis-a-vis executive?-MEC is empowered (“let’s do it”) – MEC has to determine – has to act like a board.-There are no models but there is much good – at a point of growing pains with 7 years’ experience – where do we go from here? – a great opportunity is presented to us.-To the next Visitor – here is who and what we are.-By-Laws good place to work from, most vetted document.-Absent placing limitations on new Visitor, all else is possible – consider ‘the other arm.’-Accountability (what does it mean to belong?) / maintenancehas to be stronger, i.e., quality assurance.-Call to pay attention to “vision and future.”-Image of two feet (accountability - future and vision) of journey – where do we journey next?-Spend time on ‘visioning’ and its process.-When De La Salle faced crisis, he spent time in prayer in order to act – how do we discern and respond to the challenges faced? – how do we deal with the signs of the time?-Take into account the wisdom of those who served ‘at the beginning’, i.e., the first 7 years.-Importance of ‘not losing momentum’ but moving ahead.-Hears a ‘call to action’ – the undocumented Spirit is moving.-An ad-hoc group (MEC-DC) having a conversation dealing with what relationship should exist between the two councils.-We are on the cusp of a healthy, life-giving moment, moving forward based on success.-Importance of communication.-Focus should be on our partners (audience of 5,500).-Concise description for web-site (presently absent) – importance of in-‘formation.’-Comment of concern: language by some at joint session- “lay” / “brother” - is there a sense of division? – sense of being ‘under-known’ / ‘under-appreciated.’-Review of By-Laws: associations – not operating as intended – should be examined.Break 10:20-10:30 am3.B. What are action steps to move the process forward?-Possibility of “space-time” to do what is suggested in recommendation number 2 – with look at MEC By-Laws and other pertinent texts such as the Rule, General Chapter resolutions and texts from other districts dealing with mission councils.-Tap into wisdom of previous members (cf. above) such as Br. Fred Mueller and Jeff Mancabelli-Retreat possibility – who attend? – recommend use of December meeting time with earlier arrival – space for the MEC’s open conversation with Dennis, Alan and Maryann not present but yet available for input at some point.-Different configuration – a multiple step process.-Element of visioning important – vision first then direction & agenda.-Present vision is to “advise and support the Visitor.”-What do we have to do to make sure that all understand? Example of high quality of performance as well as moving the ‘mission and charism’ forward in the future.-Group has to arrive at consensus before dealing with By-Laws.-Input from ex-officio members as resource.-Need chief administrators, DC members and feedback from various constituencies – need assent from wider audience at the end.+Do we have consensus of a “working time retreat” experience?Answer is affirmative.-Elements of prayer / reflection / quiet time.-Take significant time to reflect on:* How might this look 10 years from now.* Focus of retreat: what are hopes (sustainability) and sense of vision (future focus).-Begin retreat session earlier taking time at the beginning: Sunday am – travel / Sunday pm & evening as well as all day Monday set aside as ‘reflection space’/ Tuesday am – practical, regular meeting session. -Retreat location: Ocean Rest – 14 rooms available.-Jim Logan, Lois Harr, Br. Ernest Miller and Charles Stembler volunteer to act as a preparation group and deal with the practicalities involved; members would give feedback as to inviting past members such as Br, Fred Mueller and Jeff Mancabelli. -Marisa Guerin role as facilitator, if not then Br. James Martino.4.General ReportsA.Report of Brother Dennis Malloy – Visitor1. refers to trending ideas from Gathering Announcing the Gospel to the Poor and2. District Chapter Committee (one of five) titled “Brothers of the 21st Century”.B.Report of Maryann Donohue-Lynch – Associate Executive Director for Mission and Ministry1. Twinning – refers to Lasallian Visions; 2. CORE program at Providence College; 3. Partnership with Catholic Relief Services; 4. Meeting of 3 District Education Officers regarding the John Johnston Institute; 5. Br. Luke Salm Workshop; 6. Attending CIL session on Forming the Formators; 7. Our Brothers Story – new formation program for staff at De La Salle Hall; 8. Spring workshop for Academic Vice-Principals and Deans of Student Life; 9. Young Lasallians – VEGA year workshop in summer of 2017; 10. Book study group of Legacy Lasallians.C. Report of Alan Weyland – Executive Director for Mission and Ministry1. Clarifies Lasallian Education Council (LEC) for members (point 3 of Mission Executive Council Report).-Productive meeting (more board like feel) – greater comfortability.-Mark Freund is Executive Director of LEC.2. Board Chair workshop – results are in General Report folder.-Good feedback on teachers from Board Chairs.-Different interactions and dynamics present among Board Chairs – good for them to know of resources / background. Desire on their part to meet more than once / looking for information and guidance “in snippets” / is there a core group? Gratitude expressed to Ben Ventresca in accompanying this group.3. References Regional Advisory Education Committee.4. Visit of 2 General Councilors.5. Workshop for new secondary school administrators:-Two hours of case scenarios – beneficial -Time for sharing of ‘our stories’-LGBT issues – there will be two break-out sessions at Huether6. Advocacy – set-up simple office but not in name of Institute but involved in lobbying coalition / example of Sisters of Mercy – advocacy group is not spokesperson for Mercy congregation / shows another way of promoting advocacy / challenge of advocacy for us – matter of collaboration with other groups / lead can be taken by institutions rather than districts.5.Question / Reflection Period – How did we impact mission over these past two days?-Positive passion for mission and moving forward.-Feet solidly on the ground with a clear yearning for the future / being realistic, challenged and hope-filled.-Insuring the mission for the future and enabling it to permeate / sustainability.-Movement from present to future.-Like the Founder, we are placing ourselves at disposal of the Spirit.-Reading resumes / life stories of nominees for Distinguished Lasallian Educator Award shows how we are advancing the mission – is cause for celebration.-Process and structures are important and seen as important to furthering and fostering the mission.-Openness / decision to spend time at December meeting for prayer and discernment.-From Habakkuk 2: 2-3“The vision still has its time, it presses on to fulfillment and will notdisappoint. If it delays, wait for it, it will surely come, it will not be late.”-Looking at signs of the times – is helping us move not only in responding but in enhancing and addressing the mission.Session adjourned at 12:13 pm ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download