Task Force on Diocesan Structure

Diocese San Joaquin

Executive Summary Second report May 2010

Our first report was issued in February and we asked for your review and written
comments. We appreciate your input and have considered all the feed back we have
been given. We appreciate the time devoted to the Deanery meetings and to the
exchange of ideas and concerns. Our second report is attached.

The attached document is in 3 parts. The first section addresses the written
comments we received on our first report. A copy of every written comment was sent
to every member of the Task Force and our response was discussed in our April 17 th
meeting. The second section is a view of what this diocese could look like if it
embraced the Bishop with Cure model for its structure. The third section is a view of
what this diocese could look like if it embraced the Solo Bishop model for its structure.

Both the second and third sections end with a page of budget considerations.
Let me say up front we are not the budget committee [nor do we want to be]. The
numbers are fairly generic and are included only as a guide to the nature of our
structure. We are not setting salaries or programs. We have been asked, “can we
afford it?” The numbers provided show that, yes we can, but there are fundamental
differences in what resources will be available for ministry. Asking congregations to
volunteer their anticipated income for 2010 derived the top figure of $425,000 for
assessment income. In a few cases where that information was not provided, we took
the latest figures we had available. There were a couple of clergy that insisted these
numbers remain confidential and that no one will see the list. The Task Force will
respect confidentiality of these specific income figures.

We again ask each Rural Dean to call a meeting of his deanery to discuss this
document and to encourage written comments back to the task force by June 10 th. We
intend to have members of the task force present at each of the deanery meetings to
help answer any questions.

A final report with specific canonical/constitutional changes will be published in

mid July. Those documents will be built from the first report, your input, this second
work of the task force, and your input to it.

May God continue to Bless the Diocese, Bishop, leaders, congregations, and
clergy. May we all eagerly answer the call to do the work we have been given to do…
to Love and Serve Christ as faithful witnesses.

For the task force,

jim snell+

1
 Response to the Written comments from the first report
We had roughly 20 responses to the first report from the Task force. Some were received
via E-mail, some individually by US mail and some in packets as a result of a deanery
meeting. All of the written comments [and questions] were disseminated to the entire
Task Force to review. That review generated some email traffic and a face to face
discussion took place at the Task Force meeting on April 17 th.

Many of the comments showed appreciation for the work of the Task Force. Some made
expressed preference for a specific structure [mostly Solo Bishop, then Bishop with Cure].
A couple had issue with a perceived change in the authority of the Bishop.

What follows is a general response to those comments and questions. Some topics and
questions were mentioned more than once. They have been combined for response.

What staff work can be contracted out or performed by volunteers?

Another person wrote in the suggestion that insurance, health insurance, payroll,
pension could be contracted out. The first report showed other dioceses use
volunteers for much of the ongoing staff work.

We prefer the Solo Bishop with secretary and use “cardinal clergy” as Assisting Bishops.
When we work on the plan for this Diocese we will include the secretary position for
Solo Bishop. Creating additional Bishops within a diocese would require petition by
the diocese and action by the College of Bishops of ACNA. The Task Force
believes the province is not in a position to approve 2 or 3 additional bishops at this
time. We did like your suggestion and have developed a plan to use 3 “clusters”
for administration, utilizing rectors as the person for administration within that
cluster [basically 2 deaneries per cluster]. These would not be bishops, but would
assist the bishop in administrative tasks.

Do we need to be in the diocese of San Joaquin?, can we join with another ACNA
diocese?
Good question, however the Task Force was given the charge to bring back to the
convention a restructure of this diocese. To dissolve and join another organization
would not comply with our charge.

What is the charge [or mandate] of the Task Force?

The first resolve in the resolution passed by 2009 Convention reads:” That this
Convention establishes a task force to draft and present to the next Annual
Diocesan Convention a proposal to restructure this diocese to most effectively carry
out the mission and ministry of the Anglican Church in North America;”. The charge
or mandate is to draft & present a proposal to restructure this diocese. We believe
we have been following that charge and will continue to fulfill that mission in the
proposal (s) we submit for consideration at the Diocesan convention 2010.

2
Is the motivation simply about money?
No. The Task Force is motivated by the charge given it by the resolution
passed at last convention. That resolution cites the change in Provincial
structure [Constitution and Canons] and the encouragement of Bishop Schofield
to “prayer and conversation regarding a collective vision for the future of the
Diocese.” Money is a factor, of course. But not the only factor. The current
structure of the diocese is a result of decades of working under the constitution
and canons of TEC. We are not under that system any longer but are under the
constitution & canons of ACNA.. The motivation is to do the best we can for this
diocese under the new reality of being part of ACNA.

Have you [or you should] consult with Episcopal leadership within ACNA?
We did consult with bishops in ACNA as well as TEC to get background for the
first report. We talked to other diocesan leaders as well as members of the
ACNA staff. One respondent provided a list of names of ACNA bishops and
many of the bishops we contacted are on that list.

The use of “TEC model” is misleading and prejudicial.

We are sorry if the term “TEC model” is assumed as prejudicial. There is no at-
tempt on the part of the Task Force to be misleading. What we were describing
is the reality of experience in this diocese [and other dioceses] in the last couple
of decades or so while those dioceses were in TEC. Other denominations may
use similar structures, however most all of us in this diocese have experienced
this type of structure while being a member of TEC. Some suggestions were
made to call it “traditional”, or “contemporary”, or even ”universal or orthodox”
model. It seemed that it would be difficult to have one thing be both traditional
and contemporary or that it be universal but not. Possibly it could have been
named “TWWH” that which we had. But even that would not be accurate. In
moving forward we understand the tenderness there seems to be about the
term TEC and we will hold its use to a minimum.

The Catholic faith demands central authority.

This, or something like it, was mentioned a couple of times. There is a sentence
in one of the sections that say something like: “how to transition to a less cen-
tralized model of ministry.” These words clearly reflect the ACNA canon [Title I,
Canon 6.1] stating the congregation as the fundamental agency for mission.
We are speaking here of mission, not authority. Thank you for raising a concern
about Authority. It showed us where we were not as clear as we had hoped.
We in no way wish to decentralize the authority of the Bishop. No, we are not a
bunch of Congregationalists. Yes, we understand scripture and tradition back to
the apostles suggests a church gathered around bishops. We are in no way
suggesting a reduction in the authority of the Bishop of the diocese. We are
looking at ways to free up the bishop to spend the maximum time exercising the
duties of his office, not managing administrative details. We are focused on
having administrative tasks performed at the level closest to the need, not all
ministry decisions. We are sorry for this confusion and take our share of the
responsibility for it. You will notice it is addressed in further documents.
3
We do not want a bishop with his car as an office and a cell phone as his secretary.
Neither do we, nor will that be recommended from the Task Force.

Strengthen the deanery structure to be more ministries oriented and have a more
missionary or travelling bishop.
One of the proposals you will see has an administrative cluster system for the
diocese. We believe this is similar to what you are asking in regards to authority
[the admin canon?? Reports directly to the bishop] and direct care of local
congregations. We took your comments regarding the use of in place clergy
with administrative skills to oversee many of the tasks done in the central office.

Split the diocese, make two or more independent dioceses.

While that is a possibility, we felt that was outside the charge we received from
the convention. And it would take an act of convention to request the split then
an act of the College of Bishops to consent, then an act of convention to make
the split. It may be a good idea and a necessity for the future.

We need to have fellowship with the OCA. We need to avoid things that keep us from
dialogue with other ancient Christian bodies.
We are not sure how our structure for administration would prevent dialogue.

Preference noted to call Solo bishop “Consultant Bishop” and to streamline

administration, condensing roles and functions.
We are not married to the term solo bishop. It just conveys a structure for the
office of the bishop. Consultant is fine as long as there is no confusion with the
business world where a consultant has no line authority.

4
 Diocese of San Joaquin: Bishop with Cure Model
Some assumptions – Bishop with Cure Model will necessitate that:
1. the Bishop and diocese rely on scheduled volunteerism.

2. the Bishop be the Rector or Assistant Rector of a large parish (if the Rector, it
assumes he will be in his parish 75% of the time). If our new Bishop were to be
chosen from among the already existing Rectors in the Diocese, he would stay within
his current parish and perform “Cathedral Duties” in Fresno as necessary.

3. the Bishop delegate some of the duties/responsibilities normally handled by the

Diocese to others.

4. the Bishop share decision making with others, i.e. Standing Committee, Diocesan
Council, Rural Deans, and Board of Examining Chaplains.

5. the Bishop rely heavily on electronic communication for diocesan and personal
communication – electronic meetings would have to become the norm for most
committees.

6. the Bishop have a minimal “Office” support staff (part-time secretary/bookkeeper,

rely on volunteers).

7. the Bishop’s compensation is shared by his parish and the diocese.

8. the Rural Deans have primary responsibility for ministering to local clergy.

Duties handled solely by the Bishop

Confirmation: Deanery-wide confirmations led by the Bishop or another designated

Bishop.

Ordination: Performed by the Bishop or another designated Bishop.

Installation of new clergy: Performed by the Bishop or another designated Bishop.

Licensing of clergy: Performed by the Bishop.

Preside at convention: The Bishop would be the chief celebrant at annual conventions
which would be less business oriented and more a gathering of the church for worship
and celebration of Christ’s work in the diocese.

5
 Duties delegated by the Bishop (yet remains in the loop)

Communication: A volunteer manages the Dionet or other platform for communication

and would be responsible for on-going communication; Bishop would email a biweekly
letter.

Insurance: This would be handled by the local congregational or deanery level.

Establish standard operating procedures: The Standing Committee or Diocesan

Council would develop these and submit them to the annual convention for approval
when necessary.

Management of resources: Under the direction of the Diocesan Council, the Treasurer
and Finance Committee would handle this.

Diocesan Finances: Under the direction of the Diocesan Council, the Treasurer and
Finance Committee would handle this.

Administration of Missions: Under the direction of the Diocesan Council, the Treasurer
and Finance Committee would handle this.

Planting of Missions: Rural Deans and congregations would be primarily responsible

for this and be allowed to develop unique mission strategies for their Mission Fields.

Standing Committee: The Standing Committee shall be free to exercise their canonical
duties and responsibilities and shall closely work with the Bishop in all other areas.

Duties shared by the Bishop

New clergy selection, placement and Deployment: The Board of Examining Chaplains
interviews all prospective new clergy for academic and theological readiness; parishes
work with the Rural Dean in the placement process and missions work directly with the
Bishop. Deployment is coordinated by the Bishop and the Rural Dean.

Diocesan event planning: The Bishop works with Rural Deans in planning diocesan-
wide events

Visitation of congregations: The Rural Dean is scheduled to visit each congregation

annually or bi-annually; Bishop schedules deanery-wide gatherings of Vestries and
Wardens’ Councils

Governance of Missions: The Bishop works with the Archdeacon and Rural Deans in
this area.

6
Remarriage: The Bishop works with the Marriage Commission which reviews requests
for permission to marry from couples where a party is divorced and makes a
recommendation to the Bishop, who will have the final say.

Discipline of clergy: The Bishop works with the Rural Deans in this area

Ordination process: The Bishop works with the Commission on Ministry, Standing
Committee and Board of Examining Chaplains [current process] in the ordination
process.

7
 Some Budget Considerations for Bishop with Cure

Income
Assessments $425,000

Personnel Expenditures

The Episcopate 80,000

To include small stipend, travel, some office
and ministry expenses

Secretary 20,000
Mostly compensated by the Bishop’s congregation
but additional work will be required.

Other Expenditures

Congregational Development 160,000

General Ministries 35,550

Youth Ministries 30,000

Administrative Expenses 8,100

ACNA Tithe 42,500

Missionary Support 46,350

8
 A Proposed Structure For The Diocese Of San Joaquin
Using the “Solo Bishop” Model

Overview

The “Solo Bishop” model is not dramatically different than what is currently used by
many dioceses of The Episcopal Church; in fact, some Episcopal Dioceses utilize this
very model (for example Fon-du-Lac). What distinguishes this model is that while it
maintains the authority of the Bishop, it sees the function of the diocese as supporting
the mission of local congregations. Therefore, the diocesan staff is streamlined and
small, lay and clergy volunteers are highly utilized, and great emphasis is put upon us-
ing diocesan resources for the work of mission at the local level.

Using the information gathered and reported in the first Task force report as well as
from comments and feedback returned from deanery gatherings, we have created the
following vision as to how the “Solo Bishop” structural scheme could be implemented in
the Diocese of San Joaquin. There will be some areas where the tasks or ministry
seem detailed and others that are just summarized. It is not to say we believe one to
be more important than another or are trying to depreciate any particular activity. We
are trying to give a generalized view of diocesan structure with appropriately helpful
detail for this diocese using a “Solo Bishop” model.

Through clergy round-table discussions, as well as through deanery gatherings, there

was consistent feedback expressing the desire that the diocese be focused upon, and
thus structured to facilitate, local mission and ministry. This desire was communicated
in terms of revival, awakening, evangelism, winning souls, etc. Along with this desire
came an equally prevalent desire that the Bishop continue to be a pastor and a
teacher.

Selection and residence of the Bishop

Since the diocesan budget would fund the entire compensation package for the Bishop
(unlike the “Bishop with Cure” model), candidates to fill that position could come from
anywhere. There would not be a limitation as to geography for the candidate
pool. Under this model, the vision for the Bishop’s work is that it will primarily be as a
pastor and teacher. Thus, his work is not focused on an office. While it would be
assumed that the Bishop would reside in Fresno and continue to have offices at St.
James’ Cathedral, other options could be considered. His office could be attached to a
church, or could be at a separate location. His residence could conceivably be
anywhere in the diocese. While these are possibilities, it is again assumed that the
Bishop will reside in Fresno and continue to maintain offices at St. James’ Cathedral.

9
Centralized Authority of the Bishop – Decentralized Task Responsibility

The catholic understanding of the central authority of the church rests with her
Bishop. This structural scheme does not seek to undermine that authority, but
continues and even strengthens the Bishop by freeing him from as many operational
tasks as possible. He is the ecclesiastical head of the diocese, a leader, the defender
of the faith. He is a primary locus of ministry, which is shared by his clergy in the
various congregations.

This proposed structure is not unlike the ordering of many program sized
congregations. The rector casts vision and empowers and equips the people for active
in ministry. It hinges, then, upon active lay and clergy volunteer labor. At the heart of
this scheme are several critical expectations.

Clergy will give a “tithe” of their time toward work with the diocese
Diocesan Council will be an active administrative body and liaison for volunteers
The Diocese will be formed into regions where routine operational tasks are
delegated and accomplished

10
 Overall Structure for the Diocese of San Joaquin
Office of the
Bishop
Information & Administrative Tasks Standing Committee
Canonical Issues
Council of Advice
Bodies of advice
Northern Region Central Region Southern Region
Regional Canon Regional Canon Regional Canon

11
Rural Deans
Council of Advice
Elected diocesan bodies
Diocesan Council Missions Board
Commission on Ministry
Board of Examining Chaplains
Subcommittee liaison groups
Event Planning Communication Administrative
Committee Committee Committee Investment Trust

The Office of the Bishop
The Bishop
Discipline of Clergy
Remarriage Committee
Licensing
Confirmation
Oversight of Admin Canons
Pastoral Work
Teacher
The Business Officer would be a
part time employee responsible for
handling details regarding the fa-
cilities of the Bishop’s offices such
as property insurance and upkeep.
The Business Officer would func-
tion to follow up on communica-
tion from the Bishop to clergy and
congregations and ensure the com-
pletion of tasks assigned by the
Bishop.
The Bishop’s Secretary would be
a part or full-time secretary re-
sponsible for assisting the Bishop
with phone calls, scheduling, and
general office duties.
Vocations and Deployment Offi-
cer would be a volunteer
position to assist candidates in
completing the ordination process
and to assist the Bishop and par-
ishes in filling clergy vacancies.
Detail for the Office of the Bishop and Elected Bodies
Diocesan Council (DC) Mission Board
The DC would continue to be an elected body of counsel to
the Bishop and to carry out the mandates of Diocesan Con- Consists of one clergy and one lay representative elected
vention. from each of the clusters for a total of six elected Mission
Board members. Members would serve staggered three
The DC will consist of three (3) liaison committees. These year terms, with two people, each from a different cluster,
committees will consist of members of DC and volunteers, elected each year at Diocesan Convention. The Bishop
both lay and clergy, from the Diocese who are gifted in the would be a member ex officio of the Mission Board. The
area of responsibility. Diocesan Council would appoint one of their seated mem-
bers to serve as the eighth person of the Mission Board.
The Mission Board would be responsible for funds allo-
Event Planning cated to them by Diocesan Convention and would make
Clergy Retreats recommendations to the Administrative Committee for
Diocesan Gatherings future budgets.
Lay Conferences
12
Diocesan Youth Gatherings The Mission Board would meet with clusters to consider
proposals for joint (cluster wide) mission work.
Communication
San Joaquin Star
DioNet
Website
Media
Administrative Committee
Maintaining and ensuring insurances (property, health,
workers comp, etc) for the congregations.
Audits
Legacies, endowments, and investments
Clergy Salary Recommendations
Diocesan Finances
Assessment Tracking
 Detail for Regions and Regional Canons
The Office of the Bishop
Northern Region Central Region Southern Region
Yosemite Deanery Fresno Deanery Kern Deanery
Delta Deanery Sequoia Deanery Sierra Deanery
Regional Canon Regional Canon Regional Canon

13
The Regional Canon becomes a point of
contact between the Bishop and the congre-
gations of the region. This person’s tithe of
time to the diocese would be given to the
following types of tasks:
Respond to immediate and emergent pastoral
concerns with clergy or congregations until
the Bishop can be present.
Resource for congregations for business is-
sues such as insurances, employment issues,
payroll, etc.
Ensuring that congregations are handling
basic business responsibilities (eg. Payroll
taxes).
Verifying the flow of information from the
Bishop to clergy and congregations.
 Some Budget Considerations for Solo Bishop Model

Income
Assessments $425,000

Personnel Expenditures
(estimated total compensation, benefits, and costs)

The Episcopate $150,000

Business Officer $ 64,000

Secretary $ 72,000

Other Expenditures

Mission and Program $ 70,000

ACNA Tithe $ 42,500

Remaining Expenses $ 26,500

(including, but not limited to, items such like these)
Office Supplies
Insurance (Property, Liability, WC)
Maintenance
Telephone
Utilities
Property Tax

Total Expenses
$425,000

14