Emergent Networks

Emergent Networks – Some Thoughts

Jim Jordan, May 2014

Introduction

The Task Force on Reimaging the Church (TREC) Study Papers have many references to networks.  The network is the dominant organizational form shaping their discussions.  The Study Paper on Networks presents a taxonomy of networks to describe existing and proposed church structure.  The taxonomy, in the most general view, considers two versions of networks.  Version 1 networks appear to be networks whose origin lies in acts of General Convention and Executive Committee, in the Constitution and Canons, in Resolutions, in other adopted motions, and in actions of the Presiding Bishop and/or the President of the House of Deputies. There is an element of top-down purposing for these networks.

Version 2 networks appear to be networks that emerge as groups of individual Episcopalians, or possibly groups of congregations, deaneries, or dioceses working toward a commonly agreed goal.  I call these emergent networks.  TREC has asked for worked examples.  I can think of four, one church-related and international in scope, one secular, local, and environmentally-oriented, one secular and outreach-oriented, one secular and business-related.  I find it interesting that each started informally and grew organically – to a point.  As they grew and were successful, they also became formalized and institutionalized.

Bible Challenge

The Bible Challenge, a structured program for reading the Bible in one year that has international reach, is the result of an emergent process.  Begun as a priest’s personal discipline and driven by his passionate belief that reading the entire Bible could be a transformative experience for Christians, it spread through his parish and beyond.  As interest grew, apparently through word-of-mouth advertising, the outlines of a more formal program emerged.  For example, the effort to extend the program included a book of commentaries written by a network of Episcopal and Anglican church leaders.  “Grassroots” funding led to the establishment of the Institute for Biblical Studies, which continues to maintain and expand the program.

Friends of the Gualala River (FoGR)

FoGR’s most recent incarnation began in 2002, defending the Gualala River against an audacious dewatering scheme.  Several passionately concerned watershed residents banded together to activate what had been a dormant group.  Since then, FoGR has emerged into an advocacy group for the watershed’s environment, responding to a wide range of perceived threats to the river’s quality as habitat, especially for threatened or endangered species.  The all-volunteer, slowly changing, leadership continues to meet and operate by consensus, with minimal structure.  However, the group has reached a point where additional structure, and probably independent non-profit corporate status, is needed because of its fund raising activities and its involvement in legal actions.

Team Rubicon

Team Rubicon started in a bar with some Afghanistan and Iraq veterans talking about the Haiti earthquake, realizing that they had skills that could be useful in the early days after a disaster.  Three or four determined to go to Haiti and started off.  On their way, they met other veterans who joined up, ending with a team of perhaps ten – including an ex-Army doctor, who entered Haiti a few days after the earthquake via the Dominican Republic.  A network of friends with whom they had contact via social media kicked in money to support their travel and to help them provide help to the Haitians.  One veteran’s father, who managed the collection and transmission of the money, realized the need for the protections of not-for-profit incorporation and Team Rubicon was the organizational result.  Team Rubicon has grown and expanded the scope of its activities beyond Haiti to provide crisis relief in other disaster emergencies.

IBM’s Internal Electronic Network

In 1969, technology innovators in IBM centers in Palo Alto, San Jose, and Cambridge used their centers’ computers to establish an electronic linkage, testing a protocol for electronic data communication.  This nascent network was opened to other IBM centers; the rules were simple – a center joining the network paid its communication line costs and committed to making ports available to other centers wanting to join the network.  The network quickly became pervasive throughout IBM as center managers realized the benefits of electronic communication for many product development applications.  Funding was “below the radar,” coming primarily from each center’s discretionary budget.  It was several years before corporate executives realized how dependent on the network IBM’s operations had become.  

There is a parallel story in the growth of the Internet, although the Internet grew out of ARPAnet, an effort funded and purposed by the Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency.  The emergent behavior of the Internet and the evolving networking applications it supports have led to a popular familiarity with networking concepts.

Conclusions

I conclude that emergent networks provide a useful grass-roots model for bringing good ideas and projects “to market.”  I also conclude that the larger and more successful an emergent network becomes, the greater the need for formal structure.  Each of the examples started with a specific, narrowly defined goal that elicited passionate commitment by a nucleus of founders.  Each grew to include more expansive goals.

At some point, a church-related emergent network will have to decide whether it wants to organize independently, as Bible Challenge has, or to organize under the Episcopal Church brand.  If it makes the latter choice, the network will need to fit within the strategy of the Episcopal Church and in an appropriate place in the Episcopal Church structure.  

I do not think we have a structure now to accommodate emergent networks with ease. We will have to decide which responsibilities we should devolve to emergent networks, having faith that all the strategic needs will be spanned, in time, by networks.  Maintaining the Episcopal Church brand (a shorthand way of saying maintaining the integrity of the Episcopal Church) will require oversight of branded networks by agents of the structure.

On TREC's Governance Proposals

  The Task Force on Reimagining the Episcopal Church (TREC) has issued a study paper that incorporates three alternatives for restructuring the Church's governing bodies.  This is fodder for the recommendations TREC will make at General Convention.  I've tried to merge the ideas in the three alternatives into the alternative appended below.

1.     The Executive Council is very large to be the Board of Directors of the Church’s legal entity.  On the other hand, the Executive Council is probably the right size as the program leadership for the Church.  One way to resolve this dilemma is to designate a smaller body as the Board of Directors.  One suggestion is to have a Board composed of the Presiding Bishop as Chair, the President of House of Deputies (PHoD) as Vice Chair, and five members of Executive Council elected by Executive Council. The DFMS CEO/COO/General Secretary, DFMS Secretary, DFMS Treasurer, and possibly the Chancellor would be ex officio.   State Corporation codes provide a litany of responsibilities that would be assumed by the Board, but the rest of Executive Council would be spared them.

2.     Since the Board would be tightly coupled through common membership with Executive Council, Council’s decisions regarding oversight of programs would be informed by Board decisions.  There would have to be a defined separation of responsibilities, especially with regard to finances since the Board would have State-defined fiduciary responsibilities.

3.     Assuming New York law is similar to California’s, the Corporation (DFMS) will require a President, Vice-President, Secretary, and Treasurer, who need not be members of the Board of Directors.  Alternative I presents a simple approach, but perhaps it might be more effective if the CEO/COO (or General Secretary if that seems a more comfortable term reflecting our Anglican heritage) were the DFMS President, a senior program officer were the DFMS Vice President, the Secretary of General Convention/Secretary of Executive Council were the DFMS Secretary, and the CFO were the DFMS Treasurer. ( Actually, I have some potential conflict-of-interest reservations about the CFO as Treasurer.)

4.     The CEO/COO/General Secretary would report to the Board.

5.     As to Executive Council,

1.     The Presiding Bishop (PB) would be the chair of Council.

2.     The President of the House of Deputies (PHOD) would be vice chair of Council.

3.     The Executive Council would have an Executive Committee.  For simplicity, I suggest the members of the Executive Committee be the members of the Board of Trustees.

4.     The CEO/COO/General Secretary would be selected, evaluated, and if justified by evaluation terminated by the Executive Committee, subject to ratification by the Executive Council.

5.     In its interim role between General Conventions, the Executive Council would interpret policy and oversee the implementation of policy by DFMS staff and throughout the Church.  Executive Council should know what is going on, apply corrective guidance as needed, but not take on operational duties.

6.     Thought needs to be given to the shifting responsibilities of Executive Council.  I suppose it depends on one’s vision of how the national and international aspects of our ministry and mission are to be accomplished.  There seems to be an assumption that this work will be accomplished through networks.  I foresee two kinds of networks, some legitimized by General Convention of Executive Council and operating within the Church structure and some operating autonomously outside the structure.  The discussion here includes the former and ignores the latter.  If a network is part of the formal structure, then Executive Council has an oversight role through subcommittees or individual members serving as liaisons.

6.     All employees would be employees of DFMS, subject to the personnel policies and practices of DFMS.  In general, unless specifically excepted, the hiring and firing of employees would be the responsibility of the CEO/COO/General Secretary.  Exceptions would include the Presiding Bishop’s staff assisting with the Presiding Bishop’s pastoral and prophetic duties, certain positions for which hiring and firing decisions are reserved to General Convention or Executive Council, or delegated by General Convention to other bodies reporting to General Convention, such as General Convention Secretary and that office’s staff, the Archives staff, the PHoD's assistant, and the staff of the General Board of Examining Chaplains.  The TREC Study Report states, “The canons must be changed to provide consistency.” They canons should also provide visibility of responsibilities.  

7.     The CEO/COO/General Secretary would be a confirmed Episcopalian in good standing and could be a layperson, deacon, priest, or bishop.  The appointment of a CEO/COO/General Secretary by the Executive Committee of Executive Council would remove the CEO role from the Presiding Bishop, freeing her/him to focus on the other leadership, pastoral, and prophetic roles of the office.

8.     Significant initiatives, including employee and human resource initiatives, such as restructurings, would be presented to the Executive Committee by the CEO/COO/General Secretary for their review and concurrence.

9.     Routine day-to-day operations would be the responsibility of the CEO/COO/General Secretary and his/her senior management team subject to appropriate policy (non-micro-managing) oversight by the Executive Committee and Council.

10.  Although the organization of DFMS would be the responsibility of the CED/COO/General Secretary, I would expect the senior management team to be small, consisting, for example, of a VP for Ministry and Mission, a CFO, and Directors of Strategic Planning, Communication and Information Technology, and Administration and Human Resources.

 A conceptual Table of Organization might be:

                        Executive Committee/Board of Directors

Secretary, Treasurer, Chancellor

 CEO/COO/General Secretary

            VP Programs

                        Director for Prophetic Witness and Social Justice

                                    Manager for Network Liaison

                                    Manager for Public Policy and Governmental Relations

                        Director for Anglican and International Relationships

                        Director for Ecumenical and Interfaith Relationships

                        Director for Evangelism

                        Director of Research

                                    Manager of Research

                                    Manager for the State of the Church Reports 

            CFO

                        Controller

Financial operations managers

            Director of Strategic Planning

             Director of Communication and Information Technology

                        Manager of Content/Message Development and Admin

                        Manager of Website and Social Media Design and Admin

                        Manager of Information Technology and Cognition

                        Manager for Diocesan and Network Consultation

            Director of Administration and Human Resources

                                                                Manager of Administration

                        Human Resources Manager

                        Manager for Volunteer Resources

                       

11.  Commissions, Committees, Agencies, and Boards

This is a good time for rethinking all the CCABs.  Which ones are necessary?  In general, these are Boards that have well-specified responsibilities and the Standing Commissions noted in Alternative 3. To whom should these remaining CCAB’s report?  They certainly should be in frequent communication with Executive Council, perhaps via a leadership network.

 The House of Bishops and House of Deputies Committees appear to be aligned to the needs of the Bishops and the House of Deputies leadership. 

What about CCABs whose area of endeavor falls under the general rubric of programmatic ministry and mission?  Generally speaking, these groups have been established by General Convention in response to issues identified in Resolutions or by Executive Council.  If one adopts the notion that less formal networks and targeted task forces are the way to pursue programmatic ministry and mission, then these the topical committees and commissions should be terminated.

The existence of any given topical network would depend on the emergence of a group of Episcopalians with a passion for acting on an issue or issues within the topic area. For legitimacy within the Church, each network should have a sponsor from Executive Council and a liaison from the office of the DFMS Vice President for Ministry and Mission.  Although Executive Council might provide limited funding from a budgeted cache of seed money, the expectation would be that the networks would be self-supporting.

            All topical task forces should report to a sponsor or subcommittee from Executive Council,   with a liaison from DFMS staff.  Funding should be identified by General Convention or Executive Council before either body commiss