Sunday at church I had the opportunity to speak with our church member who serves on the BGCT Executive Board. Mainly I wanted just to express my disappointment of the board’s rejection of a staff motion to hold some committee meetings on line. According to the BGCT blog site article, Associate Director Steve Vernon stated such a move would save about $20,000. I presume that would be for each meeting.
I was not at the meeting, nor did I watch it on line (I was doing a fitness session at my gym). Consequently, my only information comes from the web article and my conversation with one board member.
My church member/friend/board member stated that he voted against the motion because he had a lot of unanswered questions. Frankly, I do not think he is a very technologically balanced person, and, like a lot of people, anything to do with computers scares him.
However, he stated to me that a couple of the questions he had were, “How much would it cost the individual committee member to set up his computer for such a meeting?” “What kind of initial investment would it require of the BGCT?” Now, I do not know if these questions were discussed, or even asked.
I encouraged him to write to Steve Vernon and ask those questions so that he would be able to vote more intelligently, if the suggestion were to come up again.
It seems to me that if the board had been asked to experiment with one or two meetings to see how they worked, and then made such a recommendation, it might have had a different outcome. The web article stated that many of the board members were apprehensive about the ability to interact, thus affecting some of the input. I guess we will never know because we will not likely even try it.
It is interesting to me that once again our denomination has chosen to lag behind the technology, for the same reasons it always seems to happen. Many people are simply afraid of technology.
A man who served as BGCT treasurer once stated that as long as he served in his position there would never be a computer at every desk. And he was right. However, as soon as he left the new treasurer started a process of making computers and a network available to staff. I recall when I went to work at the BGCT in 1983, I was told the Baptist Building did not provide typewriters to program staff. So, I used my own typewriter. In 1984 I was one of the first program staff, if not the first, to receive a personal computer for my desk.
There has always been a sincere aversion to things technological. Denominations have always lagged behind industry when it comes to utilizing technology, except for a brief period in the early nineties when the BGCT probably was setting the pace in the internal use of technology. In my position as Associate Director of the State Missions Commission, I had the joy of helping a great many associations purchase their first computer.
When e-mail came along we provided a free e-mail program to the associations. I believe it was called Juno. I don’t know how many of those disks I sent out, but e-mail became the correspondence of choice.
I would like to appeal to the Executive Board to at least try Vernon’s idea. It is worthy of at least a try. If it doesn’t work out, then ditch it, but for goodness sakes, have the courage to experiment once in a while. I can’t imagine the investment would be that great for anyone. I use Skype all the time and it is free. I spent about $15.00 to purchase a camera for my computer, not that anyone needs to see my ugly mug.
Guys (and ladies), let’s take a step into the future and give it a try.
8 comments:
While I definitely think the technology would save money, even as a younger minister, I worry about losing the "synergy" gathering together brings. As a society, we are losing the value of face-to-face relationships and it shows in our churches and denomination: our evangelism is mass mailing rather than one-on-one friendships; our correspondence is bulk produced rather than personal; and our information is read from rather than spoken to.
Maybe the value of meeting together for Exec. Board meetins is old-fashioned. But I would rather meet face to face with a group of people rather than on a webcam and computer, no matter the cost savings. Thanks for your great blog!!
Rileydog, I agree with everything you said. There is great value in getting together in Dallas. However, I don't believe having on-line meetings once in a while would do injury to that concept.
I was fortunate to retire the first of June this year from a large global company. For the past ten to twelve years, I attended meetings, training sessions, brainstorming sessions, etc from the comfort of my desk. It works great. I think I once knew how many millions of dollars our company saved on airfare alone, not to mention hotels, car rentals and time away from the job.
One example you may not think about: I met and became friends with several of my counterparts in other plants. We got to know each other well. I knew their birthdays, anniversaries, kids, spouses, what church they went to, etc. yet some, I have never met face to face. There is one or two that I became very close to. When my wife retires in a couple of years, we plan to travel across the country to meet face to face.
As far as the technology, almost every one has a computer of some sort today. It is just a matter of installing the software. Our meetings (we used IBM Lotus Sametime, http://www-01.ibm.com/software/lotus/sametime/?ca=agus_iteplotst-20080627&me=psearch&met=google&re=sametime_mkwid_sDF072309B253_1429502941_432y4m8egwwi01030&s_tact=usitk012&cm_mmc=agus_iteplotst-20080627-usitk012-_-k-_-google-_-sametime_mkwid_sDF072309B253_1429502941_432y4m8egwwi01030 were announced ahead of time; we were given a web address and pass word to sign into the meeting and a phone number for the audio I had a speaker phone for comfort and hands free operation). The person that called the meeting was in charge of and had control of what was displayed. When my time came to give a presentation, everyone else was able to see my desktop. I could then call up Excel spread sheets, power point presentations, photos, etc. and speak to the group using the phone.
The software placed a large area on the computer screen showing the presentation or meeting. The left side of the screen was divided into two smaller screens. The upper screen listed each of the people attending the meeting. There were small icons depicting the chairman of the meeting, who was presenting at the moment, etc. The lower screen was used for instant messaging to individuals in the meeting. And there was a tool bar allowing you to raise your hand (if you had a question or wanted to speak), vote yes or no. etc.
The technology is available, it works, it is easy to use, and it has been around for many many years. I am not recommending Sametime, I am just saying that the company I worked for used it and it worked very well. The company had used IBM Lotus Notes for years previously for their email. Since 3M is a “for profit company”, they most likely used the best they could find. I do not know the costs involved but surely there are many companies providing this type software.
The BGCT should talk to some people that use it, check on different software and give it a try in an experiment.
Roy Curbo
Ken, the cost to stream meetings could be done for a few hundred dollars. All it would take is webcam, software, laptop, and internet access (AT&T).
Ken, the email service was Juno. I still remember your skepticism when I told you and the other Texas DOM's about it at one of Home Mission Week's at Glorieta. I had ordered a diskette and made you a copy when I received it. You were skeptical at the time but excited. Like you I sent many Juno software diskettes. Thank you for helping so many of our associational offices become computerized.
I think an occasional meeting via webcam and computer would be great. Having worked at a charter school for a while that held faculty meetings with teachers on campuses in Houston, San Antonio, Corpus Christi and Weslaco that way. Everyone was at their own computer station, you could see the people in the other three locations, and whenever anyone spoke, you got their picture in front of you and their voice over the headphones. No "synergy" was lost. We even had some class instruction done that way.
Of course, that takes some of the fun out of it. Staying overnight in a high dollar hotel in Dallas, eating out at the nicer restaurants, all on the BGCT's CP tab, that's a lot of fun, too.
I think it's worth a try, but I doubt that it will ever come to pass.
Ken,
I spoke against the motion presented at the Executive Board Meeting for several reasons.
First, when the motion was made that our next Exec. Board meeting be reduced to one day while holding committee meetings electronically some other time, it was the first time the majority of the board had heard anything about it. If my memory is correct, and sometimes it isn’t, the issue of "trying it once" did not come up until after there was opposition. It seemed like a pretty significant change in the way we conduct business without much of a chance to consider it appropriately.
Second, when the first reorganization occurred several years ago, the number of Exec. Board members was reduced from 236 to 90. My concern then was that the unintended consequence of reducing the board by well more than half would also mean less "buy in" from our churches, thus, hurting the BGCT.
The reason given, and I believe intended, for reducing the board from 236 to 90 was so board members could be more involved in the decision making process, and better able to give input into the direction of the convention. When the board had 236 members and met for about six hours on one day at the Baptist Building, there was neither time nor mechanism to actually be involved in the decision process—at least this is what was reported. Reorganization, however, would change this by moving to 2 day face to face meetings with more interaction.
So, the recommendation to move the Exec. Board meeting back to a one day format seemed to be returning to a place we had already been, and decided did not work well.
Third, I am grateful for and use modern technology which allows people to be in meetings when they are otherwise prevented from being physically present, but on line communication is seldom as effective as people being physically present.
The reality for me as chair of a sub-committee the past two years is that I am never able to give the attention my BGCT committee deserves while I am on my church field. I believe the face to face interaction and discussions on Monday in committees before the full Executive Board meeting on Tuesday is very important and I believe necessary.
In my opinion, we should use on line technology to add communication during the 4 month periods between meetings, rather than reduce the 6 days a year the board has together face to face.
Fourth, another reason given for the recommendation, and which you emphasized, was that it would save money. I'm for saving money, but at what expense? I don’t think we can afford to have less communication.
I love the BGCT. It is my spiritual family. It is important to me that it succeeds. I am grateful for Randel Everett's leadership in focusing our churches on reaching Texas for Christ. I believe in him as a person, and believe in him as our ED. I didn't speak against the recommendation to oppose Randel or Steve or technology. I didn't even oppose it for the opportunity to spend another night away from my wife and children so I could spend the night in that luxury Holiday Inn Express next to the interstate (sarcasm intended).
I spoke against the motion because I honestly didn't think it was a good idea for Texas Baptists as a whole, and I thought ultimately it would be bad for Randel and the Exec. Board Staff.
I appreciate your desire to see Christ glorified through the BGCT's ministry. It is my desire as well. I apologize for the length of this, and ask you to give me the benefit of the doubt if the tone comes across too strong. Your friend,
Bruce Webb
The Woodlands
Bruce, you know I have very high regard for you and your opinions. You have made some very good points here and I appreciate it very much. Thanks for being part of the on-line discussion.
Post a Comment