What We Heard about the Beneficial Cycle
A Report of the Ad Hoc Design Committee
 Public Draft: April 10, 2013
Introduction
Having received a large bequest several years ago and combining that bequest with funds
from other sources, Friends Meeting at Cambridge (FMC) has more than $1.2 Million in
unrestricted funds as of the end of FY 2012. For several years we have labored to discern
how best to use those funds.
Two years ago, an Ad-Hoc Committee (Barbara Scott Nelson, David Myers, Susan Davies)
proposed a conceptual framework that entailed dividing the Meeting’s unrestricted funds into
three roughly equal parts (see graphic):
The first part was defined as reserve and rainy day funds that would be preserved
indefinitely.
The second part was defined as
reserve funds that could be used
over a five year period of time to
enable continuation of present levels
of funding for several specific
budget items (e.g. Resident Friend
salary, Grants committee, NEYM
contribution) while efforts to
improve our fundraising results are
undertaken.
The third part was proposed as a pool of funds that might be made available for nurturing and
strengthening our community and doing good in the world.
Although the Meeting has not yet formally approved the proposed conceptual framework
above, the Design Committee was formed by the Business Meeting of FMC in late 2011 to
consult widely in our community and to recommend to the Meeting a vision and a set of
policies and procedures to guide the allocation of the funds available for Meeting use (third
part of unrestricted funds above).
In May 2012, the Design Committee recommended the concept of ‘The Beneficial Cycle’
(defined in the next section of this report) as a guiding principle for thinking about the
continued vitality of the Meeting and the use of the third part of the unrestricted funds. The
Design Committee coupled our proposal about the Beneficial Cycle with the request to the
Meeting that our charge be amended to include wide discussions in the community about the
Beneficial Cycle and how it might guide our future work together. Our request was accepted.
The following report is meant to be a careful summary of what the Design Committee has
heard from the community about the Beneficial Cycle. Most of what is summarized below
comes from the 10+ meetings we have held with committees and other groups during the past
nine months.
This report does not contain any recommendations from our Committee. The Design
Committee is continuing its process of discernment and intends to report to the Business
Meeting in May or June of 2013.
What We Heard about the Beneficial Cycle: A Report of the Ad Hoc Design Committee  April 2013
1
The Design Committee offers this summary in the spirit of sharing what we heard. We are
hopeful that such a record will serve as a baseline tool as we go forward in our present
community process about the vitality of the Meeting. We note that the use of the word ‘we’
and ‘us’ in this summary may generally be understood as ‘we/us the community’ even though
sometimes it may also mean ‘we/us the Design Committee’.
The Design Committee is hopeful that since no one could attend every meeting and some
could not attend any of the input meetings, this document will be useful in facilitating a
community experience in which we are able to more closely live the ideal of ‘all of us
hearing all of us’.
What is the Beneficial Cycle?
The Beneficial Cycle concept affirms that
further focusing our practices on three related
areas of Meeting life (in an intentionally
coordinated manner) will result in significant
additional community vitality. We emphasize
that those three areas (relationship with
Spirit, outreach and integration of
newcomers, working to benefit our world)
are already practiced at FMC and each is
recognized by the community as good and
important as presently practiced.
The Beneficial Cycle proposes:
 That a community that intentionally works hard to continue to deepen its spiritual
understandings and practices will naturally be enabled to bring increasing spiritual reach
to the welcoming and integration of newcomers (and present participants) and will
naturally practice more effective service in the world.
 That a community that more effectively welcomes and integrates newcomers (and
effectively nourishes all community members) will naturally find itself with more
participants for doing service in the world and will find itself with a larger reservoir of
fresh viewpoints and deepening spiritual souls to participate in the entire work of the
Meeting.
 That a community that does service in the world more often, and more completely
together, will naturally receive additional enriching spiritual experience, will naturally
increase the effectiveness of its service in the world, will achieve more visibility in the
world (attracting some to Quakerism), and will deepen personal relationships by knowing
one another in the work of the Spirit.
What we heard about the general concept of the Beneficial Cycle
We heard general acceptance and approval of the Beneficial Cycle as a core undertaking for
the Meeting over the next several years. Repeatedly Friends spoke in support of the
Beneficial Cycle as an opportunity to practice intentional long-term investment in the life of
the Meeting.
Several Friends expressed the sense that in thinking about the limitations of Meeting life,
they are more acutely aware of our insufficient person-power and individual lack of time than
they are aware of a lack of money.
What We Heard about the Beneficial Cycle: A Report of the Ad Hoc Design Committee  April 2013
2
We took to heart that we were asked to be careful to avoid focusing too much on growth and
money. We heard that community building requires care and commitment much more than
requiring money (along with a willingness to make room in our lives for new people).
We heard several expressions of concern that the focus we are suggesting may
unintentionally result in the Meeting being less supportive of individual leadings and
ministry. We were asked to be inclusive of concepts that aid in facilitating the transformation
of personal leadings into community discernment and eventual community action.
We heard a suggestion that we might engage more with ‘the why’ of our struggles since
much of what FMC struggles with mirrors what the wider world struggles with (e.g. time
stress, resource limitation, conflict, conflict avoidance, and even the busyness of school-age
children (soccer etc.) as possible reasons for less involvement in the life of the Meeting and
First Day School).
Repeatedly we heard that Friends Meeting at Cambridge already has a whole lot of good to
share and we heard repeated encouragement to be less shy about sharing it. It was affirmed
that our Meetings for Worship and for Business can be moving, deep, and connecting in a
manner that cannot be duplicated by meditating alone or by participating in other institutional
governing structures. It was affirmed that FMC would be a great addition to the lives of many
different people and affirmed that perhaps providing for needs instead of seeking to grow
should be a core motivational focus in our vitality work.
We heard concern expressed that even though a hard won and much treasured feeling of
harmony seems present for us now at FMC (after a somewhat difficult 10 years), we need to
carefully remember our recent struggles, and, as best we can, act more effectively on our
commitment to listen sensitively and generously to what others have to say. It was affirmed
that if we do not succeed in such regard, the exercise in community building we are
embarking upon could well be ultimately futile. Another Friend expressed the sense that we
have a long way to go in responding to disagreement and suggested wryly that we need to
fight more often. The Friend related, as personal experience, that more is learned from those
with whom we disagree than is learned from those who agree with us.
Deepening our Relationships with Spirit and One Another
Many times we heard appreciation for our Meetings for Worship expressed at
the same time as we heard affirmation that Meeting for Worship could and
should be improved. It was recommended that there be more widely experienced
and consistent education and discussion about worship, vocal ministry, the role
of silence, the importance of leaving time between messages, and about trying to
speak briefly.
Investing in better acoustic characteristics for the Meeting House was recommended as
something that might seem subtle but might have significant effect on the quality of our
Meetings for Worship.
Groups exploring spiritual subjects and small groups that offer support for some of the
challenges of life (e.g. for single parents) were offered as suggestions for deepening our
spiritual lives, providing opportunity to know one another better, and providing opportunities
for Meeting integration.
We heard several affirmations that to continue to grow in the Spirit together we need to do
more spiritual work together and we need to offer more Quaker education in general. First
Day School for adults and First Day School for adults and children together were both
offered as heartfelt suggestions. It was noted that implementing changes in such areas might
What We Heard about the Beneficial Cycle: A Report of the Ad Hoc Design Committee  April 2013
3
require a somewhat radical restructuring of our First Day schedule. It was noted many times
that our First Day schedule is presently very busy.
Periodic First Day presentations on Quaker topics and more regularly scheduled ‘New
Lights/Quaker 101’ type classes about various aspects of Quakerism were especially
encouraged. It was pointed out that without being spiritually nourished ourselves, in an
ongoing way, it is difficult to inspire spiritual interest and practice in others (including our
children).
Several times in different meetings this Fall we were asked to support exhibitions of art and
performance as activities that engage us in mind and feelings and in spiritual relationship.
Suggestion was also made that we might support the creation of art and performances that
take as their subject a current concern within the Meeting. We heard affirmation that
individuals who have a community with which to share their art are apt to feel a greater sense
of belonging.
We heard several individuals express the experience of not finding enough of a real
connection with the Meeting even after several years of attendance. We heard someone ask
“Why is it that no one seems to notice when I am not at Meeting for a while?” A number of
Meeting individuals expressed their sense that more intentional activity seems to take place
for newcomers than is undertaken for people who are already at Meeting.
In general we heard consistent affirmation that more opportunities for spiritual experience
will naturally result in more individual and community depth. We also understood many to
suggest that, within such a large community, the formation of small group sub-communities
undertaking a spiritual journey together seems essential.
Outreach, Welcoming, and Integration
After Meeting
How we welcome new people who come to Meeting for Worship was a subject
of repeated concern. It was emphasized that, while some people will ask
questions and make their needs known, others need someone to reach out to
them. It was also emphasized that one can do both too little and too much when responding
initially to newcomers since some are quite wary and tender about their spiritual search and
some have been hurt in the past by religiosity or experience of dogma.
We heard however a basic sense that most of us believe that we can do more as a Meeting to
welcome newcomers. It seemed to the Design Committee that most Meeting participants
believe that more members and attenders could usefully contribute after Meeting for Worship
in providing more personal attention to those who introduce themselves at Meeting and
others who come amongst us for the first time. Assigning someone to record and organize
response for all who introduce themselves at Meeting was recommended. ‘Afterthoughts’
was mentioned several times as a valued existing First Day activity for newcomers to ask
questions about Meeting and Quakerism.
Many times First Day coffee fellowship was described as somewhat ‘wanting’ and awkward
for some and thus too often unproductive for newcomers. Suggestion was made that some
improvement in coffee fellowship might be made with the simple addition of a few tables and
chairs. Special informative displays and tables (with Committee members present) was
recommended as a practice that would likely attract additional volunteers in our work at the
same time as providing a comfortable reason for some newcomers to walk up to someone and
talk.
What We Heard about the Beneficial Cycle: A Report of the Ad Hoc Design Committee  April 2013
4
Frequently we were reminded that nametags could be used more effectively.
Several times nostalgia for the years in which we served weekly meals was expressed and
recommended as a method of both increasing diversity (e.g. in the past some homeless people
would attend) and increasing the effectiveness of fellowship time (meals tend to anchor folks
for more connecting visits). It was also affirmed that we should properly understand why the
Meeting stopped providing weekly meals before we seek to serve weekly meals again.
Small Groups
Special-interest small sharing groups were referred to over and over again as pathways
through which individual Friends had found their way into the Meeting. Many moving
examples were offered relating that the ongoing ‘holding’ and ‘spiritual support’ and ‘coming
to know one another deeply’ that often occurs in such groups, was key to meaningful
personal growth and getting through times of struggle as well as being pathways into Meeting
life.
Formation and continuance of a wide enough variety of groups with different makeup and
core subject area were recommended so that something for nearly everyone will be going on
at FMC.
The New Story Group was characterized as an existing activity that has enormous outreach
and personal bonding potential. It was also characterized as having the potential, if supported
with resources, to shift worldview from reductive science to something experienced more as
a kind of continuing revelation.
Recurrent concern was expressed that small groups have often proven to be difficult to start
and/or sustain. We heard a number of acknowledgements that, while small groups are clearly
positive for community, many experienced Friends judge that they do not have the time or
the ability or the personal call to be responsible for starting and providing ongoing facilitation
of such groups. We were encouraged many times to nonetheless find a way to continue to
start such groups and keep them going when appropriate.
We were asked to understand that longer sustained periods of time than are available in
weekly small groups could be very helpful in the bonding process. Additional attention to
providing retreats for various groups within Meeting, especially YAFs and families was
suggested.
Parents & Young Families & Young Adult Friends
Welcoming families with children was raised over and over again as one of our most
important and most difficult challenges. Since families look for others experiencing the same
period of life, they need to see children and couples when they come to FMC. It was
specified that even if parents like everything else about us, if they do not see potential friends
for their children, they tend to look elsewhere quickly.
Many times we were asked to encourage the Meeting to increase greatly our working
connection with Cambridge Friends School (CFS) since, in part, a potential critical mass of
young families is already present at the School and a natural affinity of viewpoint may
already exist. We were also counseled that relationship between official Quakers and
faculty/parents at CFS might well require very careful sensitivity because of a past history
that has sometimes been experienced as somewhat overbearing by CFS participants.
The concept of sending 8-10 families (that come to us ‘one at a time’) away together for 1-2
spiritual retreats (at our expense) was raised as an idea that could jump start families knowing
one another well (and thus bonding and becoming their own critical mass).
What We Heard about the Beneficial Cycle: A Report of the Ad Hoc Design Committee  April 2013
5
It was proposed that FMC might provide scholarships for NEYM Sessions and Woolman Hill
workshops and other activities in the Quaker World. Such an investment in scholarships was
characterized as something that would initiate spiritual experience and ‘bonding to
Quakerism’ for newcomers who are short on money and for those who haven’t yet prioritized
Quaker events in their personal finances and schedules (because they don’t know what they
are missing?).
Provision of funds sufficient for supplies, food, and activity fees was proposed as a way to be
certain that Young Adult Friends and children are encouraged to attend gatherings for their
age groups even if they (or their parents) are in a position in which they must think carefully
about a $5-10 dollar expense.
Increased funding for the Youth Activities Coordinator from 5 hours per week to 15-25 hours
per week was characterized as a change that would allow presently experienced
communication, community building, and service project organizational needs to be met.
Funding for renting a van several times each year was recommended as a way to provide safe
transportation for youth activities and also significantly facilitate less need for adult ‘inside
automobile’ supervision (e.g. one vehicle instead of 3 with driver and another adult).
It was also suggested that our children would be well served if we more completely organize
and support connection with other Boston area Quaker youth retreats/activities and with the
New England Yearly Meeting (NEYM) Youth Program (holds well attended regular retreats
for elementary, middle school, and high school children).
Expanded childcare was proposed in several of our meetings. While we have for many years
provided childcare for First Day and many other Meeting gatherings, we do not always
provide childcare for small group meetings. It was affirmed that parents might be more
enabled to join in the vital experience of small groups (and FMC ‘service in the world’ work)
if such childcare were provided. We were encouraged to think carefully about the reality that
much of the time our present childcare services go unused.
Development of a First Day School curriculum that helps facilitate a compelling,
comprehensive and sound Quaker education for our young people was characterized as an
important investment in the life of the Meeting and as something that some families will
really care about. Observation was made that relationships, classes, and curriculum would all
work better if a larger enrollment were achieved for FDS. That current enrollment is less than
we would like it to be was affirmed on several occasions as not being about any lack in the
present program (widely viewed as having great people involved and as a good program
now). The view that achieving a critical mass for FDS is properly judged to be the work of
the entire Meeting was specified on several occasions.
On several occasions we were asked to be very careful about placing too much pressure on
our Young Adult Friends to become ‘saviors’ or ‘workhorses’ for the Meeting. Nonetheless,
recognition of the contributions that could be made to the Meeting by YAFs was specified
repeatedly and with many examples. We took to heart that Friends were recommending
consistent and careful balance between offering responsibility and being fully supportive of a
measured pace of involvement by Young Adult Friends in their varied journeys into the
community.
An ‘open to the public’ weekly Friday night rotating activity (coffeehouse, readings, dances,
lectures, game night, performance, story-telling, films….) was enthusiastically proposed at
several of our meetings. Such a rotating series of events was characterized as something that
could be shaped to provide a regularly occurring outreach and bonding experience for
families, newcomers, and for the Meeting as a whole.
What We Heard about the Beneficial Cycle: A Report of the Ad Hoc Design Committee  April 2013
6
Other Outreach Suggestions
An open lecture series on Quaker related topics was suggested as a means of reaching out to
the wider community at the same time as we enjoy and share with one another. It was
suggested that we develop an advertising program for use in the Fall to offer opportunity for
more college students to understand who we are.
One Friend playfully emphasized that some money might be properly spent in making our
sign in front of the Meeting bigger and brighter.
Recurrently, encouragement was expressed for continuation of the present good work being
done to make the FMC website compelling, informative and comprehensive because for
many (especially younger people) it is the front door to FMC. Website listing of contact
information for people leading groups at FMC was suggested (now implemented by
Communications Committee on its own initiative). Offering Web Page visitors the ability to
ask direct questions and make direct requests (and receive timely responses) were suggested
as additional features of the website that would be helpful.
It was suggested that the core involvement of lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender community
members, and others, who may not be as fully accepted elsewhere, be made better known in
our pamphlets and other communications.
We were reminded several times that diversity could be intentionally sought in additional
areas including racial diversity and economic class diversity.
Quaker Quest was recurrently recommended as an existing format for outreach, small group
formation, and Quaker education.
It was suggested that having effective presentation of the Meeting and Quakerism displayed
around the building would be a good way of facilitating outside groups who rent space from
us and people who come to weddings and memorials know more about Quakers at FMC.
Witnessing and Service in the World
In several meetings one or two Friends recommended that FMC do more to
involve itself with existing social change/service organizations and other faith
communities. It was affirmed that such involvement, if groups of FMC
participants got involved with such outside groups together, would result in
good work getting done, a higher level of visibility for Quakers, and a
powerful spiritual experience for many. All of the same points were affirmed as good reason
for also doing more witnessing and service project work directly as a Meeting.
It was suggested that large service projects (e.g. building low income housing), are good fits
to involve both young people and adults. In addition to the healthy mixing of youth and
adults, such a combination of age groups was affirmed as likely to be helpful in providing the
critical mass sometimes needed to hold a newly formed sub-community together and to
actually accomplish exciting large projects. We were reminded that in large groups the
balance of age groups must not result in adults overwhelming youth participants.
Over and over again Friends affirmed that creating better information sharing would enable
greater participation in public witness and service projects. We were urged to continue to
develop a vibrant computer communication network (e.g. list-serves, databases, blogs) to
facilitate carpooling, skill sharing, free cycling, Transition Town initiatives, and other peace,
justice, and environmental projects. Phone trees, up-to-date bulletin boards, greater
announcement consistency (weekly and monthly), and timely and more informative First Day
announcements were cited as examples of non-technological communication improvements.
What We Heard about the Beneficial Cycle: A Report of the Ad Hoc Design Committee  April 2013
7
The Grants Committee, which researches many community service and social action
organizations, was suggested as potentially taking on the work of providing (and perhaps
distributing) information to our community about outside organizations. YAFs, Peace and
Social Concerns, Prison Fellowship, and Earthcare Witness were also suggested as potential
additional FMC groups that could usefully provide information.
In the context of offering hope for more mutual support and greater participation in FMC
community service and witnessing efforts, we heard recommendation that our community
service and witness committees plan some events together. We also heard recommendation
that those committees might more often meet together. One person suggested that we might
go all the way to abandoning the idea that all work on a project takes place within a particular
committee. Greater involvement by the Exhibits Committee in supporting service and witness
initiatives within the Meeting was suggested.
Several Friends proposed, as a way of setting a good example, the ‘greening’ of the Meeting
House in various ways, including through investment in easily visible (or not visible) solar
panels. One Friend proposed that finding land in Cambridge to work together as a community
garden would bind us more deeply to the earth as well as be a witness to others and a joyful
connection between us. One Friend recommended that we think about individuals involved in
FMC ‘pooling’ their resources to share a common vehicle and/or doing more efficient
carpooling. Formation of a group and/or educational project in which we participate together
in coming to know water usage, water distribution, and water technology as a spiritual and
social justice issue was recommended. Climate change work was characterized as being
important to so many people that a really large-scale effort might well attract many
newcomers to FMC and increase involvement from many already present.
Additional support for our Textron witness each month was recommended. Work with
prisoners re-entering society was offered as a mission for the Meeting that could result in
something important and concrete being accomplished and in many of us working together.
Holding block parties for the benefit of social action and service organizations was proposed
as something that would constitute both an outwardly generous activity and simultaneously
be consistent with all three areas of our Beneficial Cycle work.
One Friend proposed that more Business Meeting time be devoted to engaging deeply in
‘what should we be doing in the world’. It was suggested that would bind more of us to
shared and carefully considered community decisions. We were advised that our social
witness committees might more often work at the task of preparing the Meeting for Business
for such discernment.
What We Heard About FMC Structure, Communication, and
Follow-through
As the Design Committee asked Friends about their experience of vitality at FMC,
feedback related to organizational structure, communication channels, and followthrough frequently arose. We tentatively conceive of these elements as a “fourth
piece” of the beneficial cycle, providing coherence, consistency, and
organizational capacity that underlies and supports the other three elements.
FMC Structure
Several recommendations were made that we look at how our current structure may be
outmoded or otherwise in the way of facilitating a greater vitality in the Meeting. Specific
attention was drawn to the reality that sometimes our committees have overlapping
responsibilities and it often is difficult to find enough people to serve on committees. We
What We Heard about the Beneficial Cycle: A Report of the Ad Hoc Design Committee  April 2013
8
heard recommendation that we revise our structure to encourage our committees and groups
to meet and plan together more often.
It was affirmed that a significant number of Meeting participants do not feel clear to commit
to a three year term of service for committees and yet might well be willing to participate in
Meeting work if the commitments were for shorter periods of time. Charging our committees
with clearer and more limited purposes was suggested (perhaps committees have historically
taken on responsibilities that some committee members now feel ‘stuck with’). It was
recommended that we might consider offering a quicker rotation through standing
committees so that one gets to know the Meeting more quickly. It was also recommended
that adding temporary volunteers for short periods of specific committee service might
facilitate getting necessary projects done and facilitate newcomers gaining experience of the
Meeting.
Decentralization of some basic Meeting activities and committees was recurrently affirmed
as worthy of being looked at closely. As an example, it was affirmed that members of any
sustained small groups get to know one another quite well and therefore the Meeting might
take structural advantage of a natural care and support function occurring within many
different groups instead of through (or to supplement) a centralized Care and Support
Committee. It was also affirmed that the present Care and Support Committee is perhaps
handicapped in its work by the reality that it is not always informed when someone is in
need. It was suggested that improved methods of getting such information to the Care and
Support Committee might be what is most essential.
Recurrently affirmation was made that the ‘life’ in the meeting is most present in our ad-hoc
Committees.
Some affirmed such a reality suggests we ought to form more ad-hoc groups and perhaps
lay down some of our standing committees so that committee work is shared by people
who have a present interest in the work and a fresh charge from the Meeting.
Others cautioned that if we accept such a reality we might be constructing an impediment
to a committee finding its way to effectiveness in the work it is supposed to be doing. One
proposal was that we might offer our existing committees more ‘management training’.
Still others cautioned that no general judgment should be made that standing committees
are less vital than ad-hoc committees since several of our committees experience
effectiveness and vitality and close ties among their members.
It was suggested that when we seek volunteers for Coffee Hour and other ‘task’ needs that we
might ask committees instead of individuals to do such work.
On several occasions we heard affirmation that sometimes the Meeting will indicate approval
for something that should be undertaken, and yet, since responsibility for getting it done may
only be taken in a general way, the result is that nothing much actually happens.
Communication and Follow-through
Repeatedly we heard that there is a substantial need to improve our communication with one
another – making it much easier for newcomers (and old-timers) to know what is going on.
Several of our newer attenders shared that they had waited months to be contacted after
signing the guest book or after trying to find out how to get in the directory, or a zip code
group, or how to be added to the email list. Many members of our community expressed
worry that too much slips between the cracks at FMC.
What We Heard about the Beneficial Cycle: A Report of the Ad Hoc Design Committee  April 2013
9
We heard suggestion that less reliance be placed on general announcements and more effort be
made to invite specific groups and individuals directly to activities that would be of specific
interest to them.
It was recommended that we might benefit from the services of a computer professional doing
list-serve training and other development and maintenance in order to improve the effectiveness
of our use of technology. It was also suggested that Young Adult Friends might find ‘technology
service’ in Meeting a highly useful service opportunity from which they would also naturally
learn more about the Meeting
We heard various affirmations that a staff person to coordinate communication and/or coordinate
committees and/or coordinate events/service projects and/or to help form and facilitate small
groups would be a helpful addition for a Meeting whose participants are sometimes stretched in
how much time and attention they can give to communication and follow-through details.
We heard recommendation that the job description of the Friend in Residence (or a new
position(s)) might be adapted to create a person at Meeting who ‘knew everything’ and that
everyone could come to know as the person to consult about anything regarding Meeting. Several
Friends wondered whether an Executive Secretary with responsibility for overall supervision of
staff and/or programs would be a good structure to return to. Expanding the Office Manager’s
hours to allow for greater accessibility to inquirers seeking information about the Meeting was
also suggested.
Creating resources and procedures that help folks know how to get involved in Meeting was
frequently recommended. We heard a suggestion that readily available pamphlets/directories be
created/augmented/distributed in which FAQ for inquirers, new clerks, new groups, is provided
(e.g. how to make an announcement after meeting, how to schedule a room, some good ways to
get involved, who to call for various kinds of information, which activities are especially
appropriate for newcomers, etc.).
Assigning experienced Friends to mentor new groups was suggested as a way of taking care of
some ‘don’t know what to do or where to get info’ dilemmas for new groups and clerks.
Simultaneously caution was given that such mentors should aspire to being very careful not to
mentor too much
Where do we go from here?
The Design Committee notes that there were meetings held after this report was already in
‘late draft stage’ that are not as completely summarized in this report as the nine meetings we
conducted last Fall.
We invite all Meeting participants to respond to this summary. Did we hear accurately
enough what the community had to say about the Beneficial Cycle? Did we forget or
misunderstand anything even a little bit important? Are there important things we should
think about that have not yet been voiced by anyone? Did we present the reasoning and ideas
offered in a fair, balanced, and understandable manner? Whether you attended any of our
meetings or not: Is this summary accessible and informative? Please write or call any Ad Hoc
Committee member with any concerns, suggestions, or other input.
As reported earlier, the Design Committee is continuing its process of discernment and
intends to report to the Business Meeting in May or June.
The Listening Group of the Design Committee
Barbara Scott Nelson - [email protected]  Dinah Starr - [email protected]
Patricia Wild - [email protected]  Cornelia Tierney - [email protected]
Sandy Sweetnam - [email protected]  Lisa Lineweaver - [email protected]
Cliff Harrison - [email protected]
What We Heard about the Beneficial Cycle: A Report of the Ad Hoc Design Committee  April 2013
10