Synod 2009 participants rate meeting “Very Good Plus”

By Ana Watts

Where one is Unsatisfactory and five is Excellent, Synod 2009 was awarded a solid Very Good Plus by the 200 participants who completed evaluation forms. Even the rate of participation of about 60 per cent (200 people) in the evaluation process was well above average. The synod evaluation statistics and reports from the working groups that comprised the Synod Planning Committee for the June 4-6 event in Saint John were reviewed at a committee meeting in Fredericton on Sept. 17.

The statistical and anecdotal information contained in the feedback has already suggested new ways of doing things for Synod 2011. The possible establishment of a credentials board to prepare up-to-date lists for the registrar; better communication between the bishop and the worship planning group, the worship planning group and the technical support group; a technical support representative included in arrangements are just a few of them.

“As Bishop Edward Salmon says, ‘We reflect on the past to make a difference in the future,’” said Archdeacon Geoffrey Hall, chair of the Synod Planning Committee.

In the synod evaluation summary for our 2009 synod, registration and the RNS banquet both scored and average of 4.3 points out of five. Participants found the generic nature of the registration packets made that process quick and easy. The location, atmosphere, fellowship and quality of food at Rothesay Netherwood School (RNS) were all appreciated as well. However, the length of the evening was problematic for several.

The Trade and Convention Centre facilities and the accomplishment of synod business both scored an average of 4.2 points out of five.  The technical facilities and comfort of the room at the Saint John Trade and Convention Centre (SJTCC) scored high marks, but the lunch served there only garnered an average of 3.8 points. Several participants were concerned about the cost of the facility, but in fact, according to Diocesan Treasurer Fred Scott, it was no more expensive than the Aitken Centre in Fredericton since its recent renovation. It is the cost of food and beverages that drives up the costs associated with these venues. Groups using them must purchase all these services from the property. There was a time when this was not the case at the Aitken Centre, but that time is gone. It was the cost of the meal at the SJTCC that determined the lunch menu. The number of participants in synod requires the use these large venues.

It was generally agreed among respondents that the business of synod was relevant and conducted in an orderly fashion. Participants had the opportunity to make statements and express their opinions, and sufficient time was allotted to agenda items. The archdeaconry group discussions had the lowest score at an average of 3.9. Most of the problems with this event were concerned with space. One large group was uncomfortable in a small room, and two groups put at opposite ends of the main meeting hall had trouble hearing and were distracted by other activity in the room.

Worship scored an average of 4.1 points. The Saturday Eucharist received high praise. The different styles of music were appreciated and unappreciated in about equal measure. Several people were disappointed with the lack of worship from the Book of Alternative Services while others were pleased with the exclusive use of the Book of Common Prayer; Compline at RNS was “too late and too long.” Sound and a lack of focus on worship were issues with Morning and Evening Prayer.

Preparation for Synod is the only element that slipped into the “satisfactory” range with an average score of 3.7. Many respondents were pleased with the Archdeaconry Greater Chapter meetings and suggested they should be employed consistently, not just before synod. One respondent said s/he was better prepared for Synod than ever before. Some found the Convening Circular daunting and others would like to receive it sooner.

The hundreds and hundreds of answers to the questions posed on the evaluation form were tabulated and summarized by Ann Fairweather of Rothesay, who chaired the synod agenda working group. Of the 200 respondents, 136 identified themselves as lay, 35 as clergy, three as guests/observers, and 26 respondents did not specify their status.

 

Diocesan Communications

15 September 2009