Australian Union Asks For Input From Members, Then Ignores It When They Receive It

Subject: Australian Union Conference (AUC).

AUC Church Structure Review: Our People in Australia ignored, after invited to provide valuable input.

The “biggest stakeholder consultation process”, never before conducted in the Australian church’s history, has been compromised.  Australian Union Conference (AUC) Administrators/Executive initiated the significant Review (effective 2017) and unanimously endorsed the Report and Recommendations end of 2017.  Unfortunately, AUC Administrators subsequently decided to ignore the valuable input from our people, as detailed in the “landmark Report” and replaced outcomes and recommendations with their “own agenda”.

A “comprehensive, 138 page Power Point report” addressed the issue, “how can we do Church better?”  This “Full” Report is a genuine reflection of ideas and solutions from the Australian Church membership and other stakeholders, Australia wide on how to grow our Church.   

However, AUC Administrators have not allowed this document to be available to our People.

AUC had widely communicated that it would “listen” to the views of its people and would “act” upon them.  Throughout the stakeholder consultation process, our people “pleaded for transformational operational and cultural change”.  Ignoring this, AUC has embarked on a “separate agenda” which is to dismantle Local Conferences across Australia and to create “one Conference under AUC control”.

This “new” AUC agenda directly opposes significant input and advice provided by our people and churches throughout Australia, who wanted a “closer connection” to the wider church.  The “new” AUC agenda ignores and “questions the validity” of numerous suggestions from our Ministers, our Lay Members and other stakeholders who have been “seeking widespread change” for many years.  A recent Fulcrum7 letter (10.3.2020) also referred to the Church Structure Review process.

Background

Late 2016 AUC Executive initiated the Church Structure Review process.  I was appointed as the Committee Chairman.  AUC Executive contracted an independent Change Management expert to “facilitate” the Review process.  He is an Adventist and a successful, highly respected specialist with a long track record of transforming organisations worldwide.

Investigating Process

A team of three was commissioned to meet with Stakeholders across Australia.  The consultation process was led by the “change management facilitator”, “an AUC member” “and myself”.  Around 70 three hour meetings were conducted over a 5 month period in 2017 with in excess of one thousand participants across the nation, as well as many thousand Facebook posts.

A confidential, open and transparent process was conducted.  Very early during the Review process, it became extremely obvious that, whilst there is duplication which needs to be trimmed, the “organisation” structure was not and is not an issue of greatest concern.  Instead, it was the repeated concerns and suggestions associated with “operational” and “cultural” challenges facing our Church at all levels. 

Urgently Needed Operational and Cultural Change

At the completion of the stakeholder Review meetings, it was clear when collating the evidence that the majority of our People were not happy with the way the church was “operating”.      

Many of our members and churches expressed an increasing feeling of “disconnection” from the Church organisation and are seeking a better focus and recognition that the Local Church is the Front Line or Shop Front for our organisation.   Each week thousands of Lay Members work hard to keep the doors open of our churches.  These loyal members ensure programs operate as they should and ensure monies are collected for the church but an alarming number are frustrated and feel they are not considered important.

It was often stated the church culture is “upside down”.  Our front line people (Ministers) stated very clearly that they were “undervalued” and a “very harmful” culture had developed where “Administrative roles” were considered “highly valued and more important” than front-line positions.  This perception needs to be addressed.

Our People ‘liked’ AUC Vision Statement…”To create A Thriving Disciple Making Movement”.  However…they expressed a strong desire to be part of a “movement” and not just a denomination.  They wanted to be members of a vibrant, energetic and thriving group that was “going somewhere”.  But they felt that the church had “stalled” and were looking for leadership to help kick start it.

Structural issues

Our People made suggestions on potential church structural changes pointing out the existing corporate structure has a limited number of meaningful Functional Departments.  Our church is “people centred” with many employees but…we have no “HR Department”.   We have an “important and urgent message” to communicate but…there “is a lack of Communication skills”.  We have much to “sell” but no formal “marketing” or “social media” functions. The Church would benefit from stronger technology, procurement, strategic planning, property strategy and occupational health and safety.  A grievance/whistle-blower resource was also suggested.

For the Local Church viewpoint many suggested a “simpler structure” with clearer roles and responsibilities. It was suggested that “models and examples for small, medium and large churches” be developed to assist them.  Recognising not one fits all.

A “District” model or “Hub” was repeatedly highlighted as an important Operational option.

A typical District could have a number of Churches with appropriate Ministers responsible to a Supervisor.  Churches and other entities (Schools, Aged Care, etc.) within the District could “work together for mission.”  Formal “Districts” could address Stakeholder concerns on accountability, performance and career development. Should Conferences require specific resources in the field, suitable Conference personnel could be assigned to the District(s).  

“Trialling” a few District Models, to determine what works, was accepted and approved by AUC Executive late 2017 but incredibly AUC Administration has chosen to ignore this “important” key recommendation.  No trialling of “District Models” has been initiated in the last 2 years and no trials are planned for immediate attention. 

This is a great pity because over two years has passed since the recommendation for trialling District models was approved.  A lost opportunity because it would probably take a couple of years of careful planning and evaluation trialling District models, to determine what works.

A number of other structural issues were suggested. There are structural options available to reduce layers and duplication other than dismantling Conferences.  It should be noted that when Conference boundaries was raised at stakeholder meetings, some became angry because of a perceived “grab for power”.

Valuable input from our People on endorsed Recommendations “Ignored”.

Despite a “full” report being endorsed by AUC Executive (in November 2017), AUC Administrators subsequently appeared not to accept its major thrust and ignore the “voice of the people”.  It has been publicly stated by AUC Administrators there is no “full report”.

Extract from Summary Report....

“A full Church Structure Review Report on the consolidated views of stakeholders across Australia was evaluated by the Church Structure Review Team and recommended to AUC Executive Committee.  AUC Executive Committee accepted and fully endorsed the report on 29th November 2017, approving the implementation of its findings in consultation with local conferences.”

The important and constructive “Operational” issues has been portrayed by AUC Administrators as “a distraction not to be discussed”. Instead, it was determined to implement a separate AUC Administrators agenda.

Rather than following the voice of our People and recommendations to work out how to move Church Administration and resources closer to our front line people and Local Churches, the alternate AUC Administrators agenda determines to move further away.

AUC Administrators are currently attempting to conduct a series of Town Hall meetings around Australia.  The meeting I attended definitely did not follow the ‘advertised’ agenda seeking attendee “input” on a series of “options” covering Schools, Aged Care and Local Conferences.   Instead, AUC Administrators only promoted one issue - to close Local Conferences with Local Churches operating under AUC.  The “incentive” for this was a claim that it could save a lot of money.  However, members have “seen through this” from the few meetings conducted.  (Church “Growth” is not about money.  You can have as much financial resource as you like, but if the culture and practices are not right, there is limited value).

Actions by Administrators

How it got to this point is very concerning.  It appears important for some Administrators to neutralise those who had been appointed to work on the Review project.   As a volunteer Lay Member Chairman, I was originally asked to actively help get the whole process “off the ground”.  I also attended the 70 stakeholder sessions, heard our People first hand (taking over 100 pages of meeting notes) and was in a good position to help assist the overall process.  However, as soon as progress was seen to be gaining traction…I was sidelined.  I remained as Chairman for some time “making suggestions” and tried repeatedly to ensure the Review process “followed guidelines” but, most input was ignored.

At the same time I, and most Stakeholder participants, acknowledged the skill and success of the Change Management “facilitator” because his leadership offered our people “real hope of change”.

However, AUC Administrators did not allow the facilitator to effectively do his work.  Many barriers and road blocks were erected, preventing him from attending important meetings and not being able to meet key groups of people, making his job impossible.  He did his best to work with AUC Administrators, however they constantly tried to get him to fit into “AUC alternative agenda”.  Unfortunately, to do so was in direct conflict with the Review recommendations, contradicted the voice of our People and was not consistent with proven Change Management principles.  AUC Administration actively undermine him (some of which I was not aware of) and he was replaced in favour of AUC Administrators own agenda and self-promotion.

I resigned as Chairman as it was obvious to me that AUC Administrators were not team players and were not listening to our people.  In doing so I believe I honestly conducted my role properly for the period, in line with AUC Executive’s expectations.

I formally advised AUC Executive Committee members of my decision to resign, detailing my reasoning.  Sadly, I received an inappropriate letter from AUC Administration stating that I had no right to make contact with or discuss this with my Executive Member colleagues.  The letter to me was mostly inaccurate, somewhat intimidating, and most likely illegal and also verged on bullying.  To “silence Executive members” is completely against good, healthy governance and highlights “issues of control.”  I am acutely aware many Ministers and Adventist employees and others are afraid to speak out for fear of retribution.  This inhibits our Church in its attempt to be a “growing movement”.

Access to The Full Report

The “Full” Report, of 138 pages, was presented from which a “Summary” report of 10 pages was produced and made available to our People.

The “Summary” report has an ‘Appendix’ detailing 120 references to the “Full Report” but…to-date these references cannot be explored because the Full Report is currently a “restricted” AUC Administrator document.   

The “Full Report” is an accurate record of the voice from our people and they should have access.  It should not be restricted. 

I am privy to the contents in the Full Report because I recorded the stakeholder comments during the Stakeholder Review process.  Unfortunately, my earlier experience of “chastisement” from AUC Administrators cautions to me in this letter not to refer to information/knowledge contained in the Full Report.   I do not wish to trigger another AUC Administrator’s  letter claiming I breached AUC Executive Committee confidentialities.

Why Write This?

It was a privilege to spend a year and a half as a volunteer on the Structure Review project. It was spiritually uplifting to meet, listen to and take note of the sincere input from so many talented people around the country who want to help… Do Church Better.   What we heard during the interview process will stay with me for the rest of my life.  Most attendees were extremely pleased to have an “opportunity” to share their views and offer support as it provided them “hope for a change”.  There were also some tears as experiences were described of how they or others had been treated.   I feel responsible for ensuring the “expectation and hope” from so many….is not lost.  However, our People can rightly ask the question… “why has nothing happened?”

Our People Need to Step up and Actively Seek Answers and Accountability 

Attempts to address the situation “internally and externally” has not been satisfactory, therefore people will naturally revert to Social Media and Constituency meetings.

It took a long time before I chose to write this.  The easiest approach is to “do nothing” but that solves nothing.  Unfortunately “doing nothing” creates other issues and I now have a greater understanding why so many talented people become discouraged and disappointed with our Church Leadership and simply give up.

I acknowledge and respect those who may suggest one should not judge but this is not about judgement.  When something is deemed to be wrong it surely should be our ‘responsibility’ to be able to say it is wrong.

Conclusion

Our members and stakeholders have provided us a “wake-up call”.  For AUC Administrators to “ignore our People’s voice and key recommendations”, “create an alternative agenda” and “restrict access to a crucial full report” dishonours the people they serve.  If the ‘doubters’ had been “flies on the wall” during the interview process, the Report Recommendations would be well and truly developed with good support from our People.  Unfortunately, AUC Administrators are trying to “start the process all-over again”.

Instead of listening, many have noted that our Administrators appear instead to be fixated on “expanding their power and imposing greater control over the Church”.   Ellen White warned against such centralisation calling it “Kingly power”.

It is, and will continue to be, a serious mistake for AUC Administrators to ignore the earnest plea from employees, members and Ministers who seek a significant change to our “cultural” and “operational” practices, and continue to promote their agenda of taking control of the churches. 

It could be likened to a train out of control which is about to be derailed and end as a catastrophic disaster.  Drivers will be seriously hurt.  Support Crew will be seriously hurt.  Many of the passengers will be seriously hurt.   It is an avoidable event.

****