Cluster Coordinator Jim Boyce called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. and opened with prayer. The proposed agenda for the day was reviewed for clarification or amendment.

PROGRESS REPORTS—received as follows:

• Southern California Basic Theological Education for Ministry (BTEM) Strategic Planning—Lull and Aune set the historical context of the program in relation to its importance for PLTS because of its impact on mission and the available financial resources. A draft of the strategic plan will be available in March 1999. The plan focuses on curriculum, candidacy, marketing, and finances.

Ideas/concerns/questions noted:

• can a way be found for people in this program to receive credit toward an eventual M.A. degree?
• there is a need to move away from ARTOS language because of its antecedent history—historical continuity is a problem.
• complications of ARTOS programs; e.g. North Dakota’s "Gifts Program," recent decision by a California synod to run its own diaconal program. How to keep these kinds of programs from multiplying.
• the excitement generated when the BTEM program originated was related to people’s ability to be supportive of one another; participants were identified by their bishop and communities. As the program has evolved over its ten-year history, the number of Anglo students has increased. Must move away from old concept of shortcut to ordination and recognize that the program is mission driven to meet the needs of the church.
• PLTS will continue to need financial assistance for BTEM in the foreseeable future.
• important to bring PLTS plan into the planning of the Cluster.
• there are significant political dangers to be avoided. Ethnic specific must be spoken of within the terms of each cluster. Could each cluster be asked to identify its own strategy in Hispanic ministry, Asian ministry, etc.?
• ELCA Churchwide initiatives regarding ethnic specific ministry assume that people are more mobile than they are. An advantage of the Southern California program is that it does not ask people to relocate.
• ELCA Churchwide is not seriously considering the results of the first call assignment process for 1999—only 47% of requests for first call from each synod were met.

This apparent clergy shortage must be part of the Cluster’s planning. It is a tremendous opportunity. The Cluster is being called upon for a coordinated system of leadership development for the future of the church. PLTS and LS have ten year’s of experience with their respective programs.

• Fisher’s Net—Tiede reported on behalf of Cluster representatives to the March 11 meeting of the Fisher’s Net Operational Planning Team (PLTS, LS, Lutheran Brotherhood, Augsburg Fortress, ELCA). At this time the Fisher’s Net is primarily a service system to help all kinds of entities play in the new electronic environment. The Fisher’s Net in its present form has reached its limit in responding to the demands without exhausting ourselves. Currently not able to take it to the next level. Intent of this meeting was assessing next steps. Augsburg Fortress (AF) made a proposal to take over the management aspect of the Fisher’s Net but retain its broader content base. AF was asked to, within thirty days of the March meeting, develop its proposal for shape, capacity, how would it work, and who would play into it.

Ideas/concerns/questions expressed in today’s (3/13) discussion:

• the educational needs of PLTS/LS to supply a broader base of learning must be served.
• provide resources for leaders of mission for the congregation and leaders for public witness and service in the world.
• how do we bring other people to the table.
• is AF really prepared to engage in a collaborative process that the other partners have been doing for four years. Collaborative process must be retained.
• AF has not been at the forefront of technology; is it really prepared to offer the proposed services.
• what do we need now and in the next three to five years, from a system such as the Fisher’s Net?
• it must not be lost that the Western Mission Cluster created the Fisher’s Net. This was the Cluster’s major initiative for its first five years.
• what is our strategic benefit going to be when we get involved in this thing? What are the strategic interest of each partner?
• how do we attain a level in the Fisher’s Net that makes it an exciting resource that
• the 47% statistic for filling synods’ first call sites in 1999 presents a clear challenge that the BTEM and Fisher’s Net may be what is needed to meet the needs of 56% of the people.
• there is an urgent need to do a quality job in helping people/congregations/pastor learn how to do mission in a complex world. Need not only the tools and equipment but also need to be shown how to use them. Are Fisher’s Net new directions going where we need them? What we need from Fisher’s Net: 1. major initiatives in program, and 2. appropriate communication support for the program.

• Tracking record of current support from 18 synods in the Western Mission Cluster—Hansen and Evenson distributed an outline for a Cluster planning process that sets forth a timeline, priorities, and potential funding sources for the process. Hansen called attention to the August 1999 timeline for presentation of seminary operational plans to the joint meeting of executive committees and to the "Next Steps" on page two.

Reactions to the document:

• recruiting nationally—cooperative efforts in this area that would not create tensions between the two institutions.
• complex dynamics in funding support. In the long term are all three regions part of the Western Mission Cluster? Agreed at March 12 meeting that this is the place that we must be very careful in our governance work to develop a much more sophisticated revenue map for each school.
• add to planning priorities— *Leadership development in the WMC, and *central recruitment—strategic alliances.

• Update: Strategic Planning Processes of PLTS and LS—Lull provided an update on the status of PLTS’s planning process, noting that an outline of a planning process will be ready for the spring board meeting but that PLTS is not at same point in the process as LS. Their consultant will be back in California and is interested in continuing to work with PLTS. Complications have arisen: 1) success of recruitment efforts has now created a housing shortage. Probably will need to purchase additional housing. 2) GTU has received Lilly funds for library expansion plus a redesign of the central campus; there is an opportunity for PLTS to perhaps have a presence in that area. This is an internal issue for PLTS in terms of desirability and price tag. LS counsel is welcomed.

IDENTIFICATION/DISCUSSION OF ISSUES AND CONCERNS—Review:

Issues and concerns identified in the agenda—

• Oversight/monitoring of planning processes in areas of program and governance with view to bring unified plan to Boards of directors in Spring of 2000;

• Statement of shared mission for WMC coordinated with mission statements of two seminaries;
• Use/participation in Fisher’s Net;
• Coordination of development, public relations, marketing, constituency, church relationships, recruitment, and admissions;
• Formation of business plan for the WMC;
• Consultation with synods regarding plan for WMC support.

Issues and concerns that surfaced during the conversation—

• Identity of the Western Mission Cluster;
• Disciplined listening to the church;
• Leadership development—recruitment.

Questions for each of the identified issues and concerns—

Who are partners in each of these? Who is needed? Who is it for?

Thoughts from the conversation about issues and concerns—

• Task—prepare a document that lists PLTS/LS areas of collaboration, areas of distinction, and strategic alliances.

• Determine where/when to decide how to talk to the bishops, synods, etc.

• Faculty development. Conversation needs to include all WMC partners—alliances with others—not just seminary faculty.
• If idea of the Western Mission Cluster is bigger than the two entities of PLTS and LS, then at what level do we talk to others.
• LS Contextual Education project funded by a Lilly grant and PLTS work in the congregational studies area, also funded by Lilly, must be shared with one another.
• Identity. of Western Mission Cluster (WMC)—nomenclature.

What does the WMC mean for the two seminary entities?

ELCA/Division for Ministry funding? Initially the Fisher’s Net was the WMC response to other alliances; but the two seminaries and the seminaries alone are the WMC. The seminaries are the constant partners. How is WMC being driven—if its being driven by the mission, then it is more than just the seminaries? Conversation has to be open to more than one partner. This is a tricky issue with Churchwide; the more this is mission driven, the less relationship with ELCA/DM is the only partner. For governance and disbursal of funds we need to be very clear.

Test whether to reserve WMC for seminaries. Come up with another term to identify the WMC relationship to other partners. What is it that seminaries bring to the other partners as an intransitory thing that they will respond to?

Must get back to the foundation of what this really is; we are talking about theological education providers.

Partner with others but institution has its own discreet existence. WMC needs to be defined this way. The whole combine does not take on the name. Functions of how we act, what we do—may be easier to identify ourselves as the WMC and to not use the term for the broader arena. Just because we have partnerships doesn’t mean that they all need to be called WMC.

Other clusters’ identity is limited to what they are doing with themselves.

If language is not right, it may give appearance of talking collaboratively but acting autocratically.

Confusion between the distribution system we have and the hierarchical system that is in place.

How do we define active participatory beneficiaries of what we do and how do we define just recipients of what we do? How do we define the customers with whom we want to interact?

Know what our products are—not enough work done on this yet. Is there an audience for our product? Market analysis needed

How to we partner together—we are struggling to figure this out.

If what distinguishes this cluster is defining ourselves not as joining ourselves together but for the mission, then we are in this together.

• Leadership—common goals for leadership and talk about problems together.
• Are cooperative development efforts an important element (fund raising); e.g., shared deployed staff, shared technology (databases)—infrastructure? Systems to support fund raising that make the best use of each seminary’s strengths and abilities. It was suggested that these are administrative (business) not strategic decisions. Strategic alliance or collaboration. Explore possibilities for collaboration with PLTS using a version of the QuoData system (piggyback onto LS). Need for conversation about the current development environment—we are not bringing in new high-volume donors that are needed.
• PLTS and LS are not in competition for students. Cooperation in student recruitment may be beneficial—look at all aspects, downside as well as upside. Benefit of having synod bishops visit seminaries is that it opened their eyes to a broader vision for placement of candidates for first call.

Two task force sessions were held over lunch; one focussed on academic program and the other on governance.

STRATEGIC PLANNING:

Following the luncheon sessions, the meeting reconvened in plenary session as Task Force #3 for work on the agenda for action that needs to happen between now and August 26, when the WMC meets again.

Reports from Task Forces #1 and #2 were received as follows:

Task Force #1 (Academic Program)

Task Force conversation revolved around three matters of curricular strategy:

1. Collaborative: academic calendar
2. Common: policy for course equivalency, admissions process for online candidates, and assessment of students (admissions à educational process à outcomes).
3. Coordinated: syllabi of core courses posted on seminaries’ web sites.

Discussion:

Helpful for PLTS and LS to have some kind of consultation with the candidacy committees from various synods in the three regions about our common goals, about student admissions—within context of the 47% of the first call requests. Noted that ELCA Candidacy Manual is being revised so this might be a helpful process to feed into that revision. Such a meeting should possibly include at least one representative of a synod candidacy committee from outside this region. Such a consultation is important for the whole church—current system seems to be disheartened in many ways. Frame it as missional/collaborative and prove that it will change old policy—has possibilities for grant funds. See the mission challenge instead of old ghosts—will not get beyond this if the old ghosts aren’t done away with. Do this with a sense of promise. Mutual understanding. What has the ELCA process done to what we read at the other end (shortage)? We have to be willing to take a risk—we have to allow people to fail and not be shamed by it—candidacy committees need to recognize this. Is so much screening what we need to have, or is how to do recruitment? Management issue—it’s not so much who we hire, it’s who you fire; this may be a role in the church—not only do we have responsibility for continuing education, we also have responsibility for helping someone retool to help them move into a more appropriate career. Is there a need for a national Human Resources office?

Begin work on writing a Teagle grant proposal for the candidacy consultation. Other items that could qualify for Teagle grant: quality outcomes assessment, faculty development.

Current Contextual Education piece of respective programs—look at how it works within curriculum.

Cross-Cultural joint offerings possibilities very positive.

Action:

By August 1999 define character of the collaboration, coordination: How this piece fits in the plans of the school. Doing it together will make it better.

PLTS’s faculty development plan needs to include how it relates to LS and WMC, GTU is also a factor for PLTS.

By August 1999 have a work plan in place.

By Spring 2000 have an operational plan in place.

Curricular piece just needs mutual education—we are already working on it; between now and August sketch out matters of curricular collaboration.

Candidacy Consultation with synods—what might be the shape of the bishops’ collaboration? Should the date for this consultation be set to follow the November Bishops’ meeting?

Posting syllabi on the worldwide web: how should this be done most effectively? Post as course of the institution or as WMC—location not a factor; the key is linkage. An index and credit equivalencies are important. List course schedule on the web then a link from there to the syllabus. Create a mediating site for ease of accessibility.

Clear that WMC and Fisher’s Net is not the same thing no matter where they are going.

Task Force #2 (Governance)

Task Force conversation spoke about governance as a leadership function in a variable dynamic rather than of structure and control. Design governance that will lead the two seminaries in their collaboration with one another and other providers toward a collaborative process function which leads to mission. The WMC is a collaboration of the two schools within a larger arena; it would be a strategic error to draw lines around just the two schools. Governance must be thought of as leadership.

Action:

By August 1999 bring some kind of governance or design of a governance by which the two schools and their network of providers will be lead or will lead them into a collaborative or integrated strategy that leads to mission.

Discussion:

Still need to address the who question. Test the design by ask whether we have figured out who makes what decisions. Who makes what decisions about what.

Design a "leadership map" not just a "governance map."

Of all the entities in the church, the synods and seminaries attend to the distinct calling of leadership for mission. What is distinct about this: As it is or should be exercised by synods, by seminaries, by others.

What do we have to do together, with other providers, by ourselves?

How are we going to get this work done—emphasis on the contextualization initiative.

What action will we take together to test validity of collaboration? (How we respond to realities of shortage.).

NOVEMBER 8–9, 1999 WESTERN MISSION CLUSTER BISHOPS MEETING

Ramseth, Tiede, Knudsen will design a plan for the bishops’ meeting. Other bishops will be invited to work on the design. They need to be on board soon. This event is characterized as largely a listening and discerning event—what do we need from each other that we are not doing? It is not "selling" the WMC project.

Planning group needs to meet in June 1999.

Agenda topics (leave space for developments):

• Complications from proliferation of ARTOS-type programs.
• Contextual Education.
• Disciplined listening to the church. How does this kind of listening fit into the plan for the Western Mission Cluster?
• ELCA Candidacy process (This might be an opportunity to say to the bishops that we need to reset cultural tone of calling process—candidacy committees. PLTS will also ask questions about the pressures that the first call shortages are placing on all systems; e.g., can we not just wait for a national solution? Should we let each synod go off and start its own programs? How can we work together on this?).
• PLTS/LS and WMC draft strategic plans.

PROPOSED GRANT APPLICATIONS

There was agreement that grant moneys should be sought for funding the following:

1. Bishops’ meeting, November 1999.
2. Candidacy consultation
3. Fund raising issues

Specific proposals that can be put into grant form will be reviewed at the August 26, 1999, WMC meeting.

Serious internal homework is required around these questions about grant applications and other sources of funding:

1. Do we need to have a more identifiable structure for applying for grants and receiving funds from the ELCA—WMC?
2. Who makes this decision?—not this group.
3. Who is authorized to apply for funds? Allocate funds?
4. What is our capacity for gaining grants by having a new governance structure? Would it be enhanced by including others?

The defacto governance is the two executive committees of the PLTS and LS boards. They are committed to meeting annually. If the current WMC task force would go awry, then the governance goes back to executive committees.

Response to a question for clarification regarding who is responsible to carry out the particulars defined in the WMC documents was that the WMC Coordinator looks to the two presidents, etc., to hold people accountable for what they said they would do.

JOINT BOARD MEETING, AUGUST 26, 1999, BERKELEY, CA

Agreement that by this August 26 meeting there needs to be in place a WMC planning documents for the boards to review so that they have a clearer understanding of what’s needed, where we are going.

Concern raised that this WMC committee is light on persons who are knowledgeable, experienced in student processes—admissions and candidacy—and raised the question about modifying who will participate in the August 26 meeting. Agreed that the presidents and WMC coordinator need to decide this issue—must talk with those people who have the knowledge. Recommendation that a teleconference be held with those key people, present the ideas that have come out of this meeting and then convene the WMC committee members and others to involve them in a video conference. Jim Boyce will coordinate with assistance from others at each seminary (Diane Jacobson/LS and Martha Stortz/PLTS). Also agreed that this teleconference needs to take place before the June meeting of the planning group for the November bishops’ meeting.

Committee was also asked to think about how the October 1999 (possible) joint meeting could include components that could be fun and helpful; such as a special luncheon speaker—this could have implications for funding requests.

NEXT MEETING OF WESTERN MISSION CLUSTER COMMITTEE

August 26, 2:00 p.m. through lunch on August 27 (lunch will be with the executive committees).

In the interim Tiede and Lull will continue to work on governance and draft a statement that defines how we are functioning at this point—one that clarifies all that is in the present WMC documents about governance.