I got the same survey. I agree, it wasn't well structured. Much of the input they requested would take far too long and they were clearly confused between the role of pastoral oversight and pastoral relations.

I'm still confused, are you saying that Pastoral Oversight is what our church calls "pastoral care", ie visits to people in the community?

The way the question was worded I took it to mean there is a Pastoral Oversight committee from Presbytery that visits congregations.

And what the heck is a triennial pastoral charge visit?

I know the issue of UCspeak has been raised in other threads but this is the first time I have ever really encountered it.  How can any one expect to get any information from such a survey other than what they want to obtain if some of the *invited* participants do not understand the language?

LB

I think we invent jargon because it saves times talking to one-another.
      John M. Smith

Good confusions LB.  Despite many conversations with people who attend various UC congregations in various provinces I have not been able to understand the word Pastoral!  When added to another word such as visit or care it gets even more confusing.

Maybe I should just ask the ministers here. 

What is Pastoral Care?

Pastoral Visiting?

Pastoral Oversight?

Pastoral Relations?

I always seem to have a "downer" story. I have been involved in many oversight visits both as staff and lay and as a member of the Oversight ctte at other churches.

The last Oversight visit I was involved in was a "downer". Staff met, board met and congregation met with the ctte. A report was written and sent to the Pastoral charge. The minister obviously didn't like some of the comments because it was hidden and never showed to the Church Board to act on any of the suggestions.

So, the Pastoral Oversight Visit, imo, is only as effective as the people involved There was no follow up to the report..

Hi lb - here's a link to national church's description of Pastoral Oversight visits - my church is due for one this year, so I'm starting to read up. 

http://www.united-church.ca/local/oversight

At a presbytery committee meeting this week, there was a bit of discussion about these visits.   Although perhaps originally intended somewhat as a friendly 'neighbours visiting neighbours, let's chat about how things are going' kind of thing, in some areas they may have descended into finding out where churches are not in compliance with the rules & regs, proceedures required by the manual etc.  - more of a 'get in line, slap on the wrists' thing.  Perhaps the church is starting to review the purpose & function of these visits?    I think they are to be scheduled every 3 years - so that's where the 'triennial' thing comes from.

And BTW - I do agree that the language is confusing!  We're a creative bunch - can we improve on it?

ANd then there were queries I could not answser about my current place simply because I have only been here for 7 months.  It might have been importatnt to ask how long the respondent has been involved witht his/her current PC or ministry.

ANd it was trying to cover too much.  I know the idea was one omnibus surbvey instead of a bunch of smaller ones.  But this gave the impression of a dusting on several topics instead of a deep look at any.

a) care of the people within a Pastoral Charge.  Done by both paid and unpaid people with in the PAstoral Charge.

b) one way that PAstoral Care happens, usually used to refer to visits made by a person in paid ministry.

c) one of the key roles of Presbytery.  They have the duty to have oversight of all the ministries in their boundaries.  A large part of this is done through regular three-year (trienniel) visits to check on how well the Pastoral Charge or Ministry is functioning.

d) issues involving the relationship between a member of the ORder of Ministry or a Designated Lay Minister and the Pastoral Charge or Ministry.  This includes Joint Needs Assesment and Joint Search functions among others.

I agree fully.

Thank you everyone!  It is clearer - although not clear

I shall attempt to press on now in the survey.  I'll probably be back....

addendum:

I muddled through thanks to information provided here.  I will say this, I think that is one of the most poorly constructed surveys I have ever completed.  I'm still not sure whether I agreed to being taken over by Presbytery or letting the congregation loose upon the poor minister!

Write to GCHR and let them know. A HUGE chunk of change is being spent on this.

From the survey intro:

Although ironically, when I reported that the initial "heads up, survey is coming" email was sent to the wrong person and address, that did nothing to change where the actual survey invite was sent.

Hey is that person our Martha who regular drops into wc for a chat?

Likewise. I received it at my personal, non-church e-mail and at the church's office e-mail. It never came to my own church e-mail.

Likewise. I received it at my personal, non-church e-mail and at the church's office e-mail. It never came to my own church e-mail.

Yes. One and only.

Good, good...the survey is working! 

The language is confusing?That's what I think too!  Perhaps there's a survey finding in that...hmmmmm

The survey is huge! Yes. That's the point, too. We are spending a lot of money to save even more.

The survey is different; I'm not sure what they're going to find out...  Myers Norris Penny, and their agent Prairie Research Associates, are finding out about the situation in the leadership in the denomination and it's never been done like this before.  It's going to be quite different from what we're used to.  Different is Not a Bad Thing.

And Yes! I'm the one to contact. Of course, I'll now refer you to Nicholas, who can send you a survey directly to your own proper email--or to anyone in lay leadership or ministry with the United Church, so refer this information to them: borodenko@pra.ca

Nicholas Bordenko works for Prairie Research Associates, the company running the survey.

*The Survey is anonymous* is something else I'd like to mention. 

Yes, the databases are TERRIBLE; individual addressees would not have been my choice. (A 'personal invitation' is preferable to pollsters, as it encourages participation.  In our context, however, I know that this can backfire when the address database is as totally abysmal as ours; please encourage all lay leaders or ministry personnel of the United Church that you know to fill one out!)

Martha, the most simple way I can say this is "This survey says it's about leadership but it doesn't ask about leadership (much)."

If we are talking about leadership, then where are the questions? Then there appears to be some HUGE misunderstandings presented about our United Church polity...

I have seen this happen before. We hire outside contractors to tell us about ourselves but they didn't do their homework and the results were ... well... not used.

I hate being old enough and long in the tooth enough to remember past mistakes... damn memory.

Thanks for coming to this thread Martha!

And perhaps this is an indication of a need to improve communication methods?

Take solace DKS, eventually you will be old enough to *not* remember.

LB - every day is a new day

If there is anything I've taken from my various learnings with regard to surveys, whether it was at Concordia, or Humber, or in my 'recreational' survey-filling-out, it is that the question asked is Rarely the one you think you are being asked.

That may be true, but from my own recreational survey taking, it's not hard to figure out who is asking the questions and why. And when the questions don't make sense, the survey is worthless.

...but if the questions Do make sense, but You can't tell because your a Minister, not a Statistician...?

I agree with David; I've completed the survey and see it as a massive waste of money which will likely achieve very little.  I have more than enough background in statistics and survey design to know that there is a huge disconnect between the questions that are asked in the survey and the answers that it seeks to find.  It felt more like a poll on a variety of issues confronting the institution than it did about leadership.  The question about pastoral oversight that begins this discussion is a great example - the assumption that people getting the survey will understand the terminology used in the survey is a great example of the "lack of communication" to which you refer Martha; I believe that there is an assumption by the people asking the questions (MEPS) about what the respondants will know and understand about the structures of the United Church.  By the time I reached the question which asked something to the effect of "How have congregational expectations of you changed over time?" I was wondering what neanderthal had designed the questions.  What is meant by congregational expectations?  Who decides what "congregational expectations" are or are not?  The minister?  The board?  The chair of the UCW?  What does "over time" encompass?  2 months, 2 years, 2 decades?  I fully expect that the information that comes out of the survey will simply reflect the diversity of opinions and understandings of the terms and terminology used; and that there will be such a level of diversity that the information will be essentially useless.

Well said, Jim. I agree completely with your perspective.

It is not a statistician who designs the questions, but in this case, an opinion poller who may have a background in a variety of social sciences.

I stand by my statement that this was a poor design. I concur completely with Jim, above. Jim does have some understanding of the subject, I believe.

I completed the survey, and I found I couldn't provide my preferred answer to a number of the questions.  Some questions allowed a limited number of answers, and none represented my opinion.  But I couldn't move to the next question without providing an answer.  I found I had to use dialogue boxes in subsequent questions to qualify answers to previous questions.

The questionnaire was valuable in other ways, capturing opinions on issues related to 333s, 363s, and obstacles to ministry.

I was concerned about the question asking us who we think our employer is.  I thought that to be a question National should be answering definitively rather than polling.

Brad Morrison

Fair enough. BUT, more importantly, something has come to our attention today:

If you have been forwarded a link for the survey, it may not work. If it does not, please email:

Nicholas Borodenko, at borodenko@pra.ca

He'll send you a link that will work. The links were 'single use'; if the person who forwarded you a link completed the survey, then you'll need a 'fresh' link.

ps: these comments are providing lots of extra info around the survey! thanks! and keep up the good...er, commenting.

On a lighter note - my grandaughter, reading over my shoulder, managed to read the title of this thread as (I'm still chuckling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Pastoral Overnight Visits !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL. That too, Kay

<smiles at Kay>

Whoa!!! Now that's what I call Pastoral care.