Present: Knisley, McFarland, Briggs, Thompson, McMahon, Davidson, Meade, Allen, Reid

Hosts, Guests, and Consultants: Williams, Seitz, Caum, Wozniak, Fuller, Sullivan, Lamb, Barwell

Absent: Wolf, K. Smith, Whalon, Monroe, Spence

Convened at 9:22 AM EDT by the Chair.

Reconvened at 9:22 AM, EDT at the Episcopal Church Center, 4th floor large conference room. The Chair led the Commission in prayer.

Williams covered the media and communications planning for the upcoming House of Bishops meeting in Spokane, Washington, including the featured speakers (Miroslav Wolf and Richard Rodriguez). He mentioned the open agenda of the meeting, as well as the one closed session that the bishops will hold during the course of their meeting. Williams also noted with appreciation the innovative nature of this Commission's work, especially how the prior meetings of the Commission have forged new territory in the use of particular technology to accomplish its purpose.

He went on to describe the time after the departure of his predecessor, specifically the need for a consolidated strategic plan coordinated through the Office of Communication. Facing particular challenges in the Church, notably the Eames Commission report, the Church is particularly sensitive to the use of Communication to conduct its mission.

Come and Grow (comeandgrow.org): This is the new slogan The Office of Communications is standing behind in place of the old 'We're Here for You'. (werehereforyou.org unfortunately sounds a bit too much as though we used to be there for you but are not any more …)

Williams distributed a graphic with the preceding slogan, along with a handout enumerating the components of the comprehensive communications plan.

Reid noted the need for criteria for evaluating success. Williams responded that of course that component is essential. He remarked that they intend to refine both the content of the website and the navigation/technology behind the website in particular. We spoke about the RedDot system in particular as a point that we should address during our time together. Williams asked us to help create and refine criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of our technology. This engendered some vigorous discussion about whether that falls under the aegis of this Commission.

We spoke for several minutes about the National Advertising Collaborative, and how the EC Communicators felt that the product was not effective for the goals we've set for them in reaching out to the youngest adult generations and the unchurched, to whom we're attempting to speak. The Kanuga conference reinforced this perception, and the product was ultimately dumped.

We talked for a while about the new slogan and mentioned the failure of the prior slogan change. There was some question as to how fully this slogan has been tested and how much external (unbiased) exposure it's seen so far. McFarland noted how crucial it is for slogans (especially) to have external validation in order to guarantee a certain entrée with those outside the church whom we hope to reach.

The Director went through the rest of the topics for the communications plan quickly, including the translation services position that has been scoped for a candidate search.

The Commission recessed to the 10th floor, where the Communications Staff sits, in order to meet those staff members.

The Commission then reconvened at 11:02 AM in the 4th floor conference room. We were joined by Michael Barwell, communications consultant to the Diocese of New Hampshire.

Williams spoke to the difficulty moving on from the departure of his predecessor, but that the staff is adapting to some new ways of doing things, including greater freedom and latitude in doing their work.

Reid suggested a change to the cube wall height in the Communications staff area, since it is such that men can usually see over the cube walls, but women cannot. Apparently with the renovation, there is an opportunity to make a change there. He also strongly suggested a system of peer review for staff from an external or unrelated agency.

Williams spoke to the new Daybook and asked for feedback. The Commission's feeling was generally positive, with the additional observation that the fixed format can become a hindrance. Williams noted that they receive 5 or 6 media calls every day.

With respect to the Eames Commission, he mentioned that there will soon be an announcement to the Church about resources available to the various communications ministries of the Church at all levels to address the report when it comes out. The presiding bishop's letter was the first of several steps. The announcement of 'Fast Facts' in HTML format for the media, as well as plans for technology and media response at the time of the report's release. Williams shared with the Commission some details about how the report would be released, as well. The communication strategy at this time is first to relay to the Church as a whole the readiness to provide information as quickly as possible, second to reinforce the mission of the Church to spread the word of God, and third to reinforce its identity that is unique, traditional, and fundamentally relational, fourth that it acknowledges that pain that has occurred since GC2003, and recognize the diverse opinions within the Church about these issues,

The Commission spoke to the concern over the grade level of the language used coming from the Communication Office and how it required Brian to use his brain in painful ways. There was a concern that though we finally have something where we used to have nothing, it is still critical to rewrite what we do have in order for it to be valuable to media who may not be as facile with religion or theological terms. Jan Nunley is assigned to that rewrite, which is already underway.

There was also a review of the statement from the presiding bishop. Barwell pointed out that these are largely internal messages, which will doubtless have to be reinterpreted for a (much) wider audience, while retaining its fundamental tone and voice.

The Chair mentioned that the Commission's charge is to be for the entire church, and that we should deploy our full resources

Williams mentioned an expectation that leaks will occur to the media, that reaction may be unfavorable to the Episcopal Church, special interests will spin the report to their own agendas, and that the Office will decline to speculate before the release, that the Church continues to welcome newcomers and continue in its mission, and that 'the Episcopal Church is intact'. There will be an emphasis on the longevity of the Church in this country, and that it's not going anywhere.

The main target of communication is the general public reached through the professional news media. There is a lesser emphasis on the communication to internal, diocesan communication ministries. Williams asked for assistance determining how to reach loyal Episcopalians in the nine Network dioceses. He covered the logistics of and preparations for the information releases at the time of the report's release, including staff assignments, locations, and writing strategies. Caum noted that with October 18 th being a Monday, most parishioners will hear first about this from the national media, and that we will not 'reach' them until several days later.

Barwell addressed the Commission next, speaking first to his work with the Diocese of New Hampshire during the search process that eventually led to Bishop Robinson's election and consecration. He spoke to the hope and witness of the diocese as a result of how they handled communication.

The Commission recessed at 12:05 PM for chapel and lunch and reconvened at 1:15 PM.

Barwell advised us that the important work for us is to anticipate the events of the upcoming nine months, of which the Eames Report will not be the most difficult to tackle. He suggested preparing media kits for diocesan-level use. This could go out to all the EC Communicators immediately and encourage them to lay the groundwork immediately and begin working with the media in advance of this particular news event. He also suggested reissuing the book 'Communicating in Crisis,' which the Church issued in 1993.

Seitz also presented the need for a central 'swat team' to respond rapidly to emerging/unanticipated communication crises. Barwell will send a copy of that document to either Knisely or Wozniak or both. Thompson suggested a 'boot camp' for communicators before planned media events in order to orient them to how they should be dealing with media during the event itself. Wozniak discussed the history of such workshops and the unfortunate financial cost of them and considered the possibility of seeking grants to offset the cost of them. She also desires a greater utility in the EC Communicators website as a resource for their members.

Meade reminded the Commission of the ELCA's timetable for discussing issues of human sexuality and how this may affect issues of our communality and interrelationship with the ELCA.

Barwell suggested generally to plan for the five most likely crisis scenarios facing the church or the diocese and to put together a communication plan for those scenarios. Laurie mentioned a UMC resource for crisis communication called 'Not If but When.'

The committee took a brief break before the conference call began. Wozniak excused herself.

The Chair briefly summarized the day's conversations so far for those Commission members joining us by telephone. He specifically apprised them of Pat Mordecai's announcement regarding the postponement of the Director search.

From there, we reviewed the planned list of topics. The Chair reviewed the morning's meeting with the web site staff and the newly-developed 'comeandgrow.org' website (not yet released). He mentioned that the Commission has been asked to write a resolution funding the Ad Campaign for the next triennium, so we will have to come up with a number and be ready to justify it. Seitz mentioned the name of Skip Shedding as a good consultant to help determine what that number will be. McMahon noted that the Thanksgiving service at the National Cathedral will be televised and will have a definitively Episcopal character.

The Chair drew our attention to Thompson's work in the Diocese of Southern Ohio and how it might feature as a piece in Episcopal Life as a way to generate interest among lay specialists to participate in this kind of work at the diocesan level.

We discussed the planning that the Communications Department has undertaken already specifically to prepare for the Eames Report's delivery. We discussed the ECUSA website and its continuing difficulties. Spence asked about how we perceived the completeness of Williams' promised comprehensive communication plan. The Commission noted that it's undoubtedly incomplete, but perhaps forgivably so (for now) and a good start regardless. We also discussed Dean Werner's strong recommendation to us to create a document that would articulate to the new PB how to do communication in the Church and work with the various communication ministries of the church, from the perspective of his (the PB's) own oversight. We discussed the potential end of the Lambeth Portal funding that has existed in the past and how we might participate in funding it or helping it continue to exist. The opinion of the Commission was divided about it. There was a consensus that we need to know more about its costs before we can really decide about whether we wish to step up on assisting it.

There was a vigorous discussion about the current incarnation of Ecunet and how it is or is not satisfying the purpose for which it was intended. The Secretary contributed an opinion that the process by which technology is chosen is very important in avoiding costly mistakes. The Chair asked how we might make transparent, open decisions when the decision makers are spread throughout the world. Spence suggested a venue for official announcements coming from the central church for work of this type. Caum suggested the President's Papers as something that achieves that goal.

Smith mentioned that the Diocese of Arizona uses FirstClass, which he reports is working well for them. We agreed that we need to determine how to make technology choices on behalf of the church center and even other groups. It seems appropriate to ask whether there is an RFP process in place for technology, especially since this is standard business practice for accomplishing the same goal.

Davidson mentioned a discussion with Ed Cimafonte about the Parish Finder portion of the ECUSA website and a particular question it raises. Seitz put some of this discussion into perspective by pointing us to ways in which the same problem has been solved in the commercial world. It seems entirely appropriate to look to the ways in which businesses have solved similar (if no identical) problems.

We discussed the recent availability of money for a translation resource at the avail of the ECC to do Spanish language translation. We will doubtless need to draft a resolution to continue funding of this ministry and its mandate from the preceding GC.

Spence brought up a concern about the ECUSA website's lack of content addressing the policy-making bodies of the Church (such as the CCAB's, EC, etc). He suggested we begin making connections to the other CCAB's and trying to bring them in and connecting up their websites for them (if they have them). The Chair suggested we tackle this as soon as we've gotten our own house in order in this regard.

After this, we concluded the conference call and recessed briefly.

Lamb distributed a handout describing DFMS technology services.

Lamb introduced himself and spoke about his position, which is to integrate the technology services throughout the church center and provide a consolidated approach to technology. He spoke about RedDot and its current use here at ECC as content management and content integration. We described the work of the web development group, enumerating five main areas of content that have been deployed over the last 18 months. The consolidation has made certain content development maintainable, since program areas were no longer contracting work to outside organizations that did their work and left. He mentioned that the RedDot training (for example) is a two day 'boot camp' style training with highly-available support continuing forward. He discussed some of the limitations of this particular system and the challenges that the staff faces with it.

McFarland asked for detail about the decision to employ a content management software (which is largely used for high-volume content deployment) solution to handle the DFMS websites (which have low volume content change). Lamb felt unable to answer the question definitively, but pointed to an expectation of higher volume than was ultimately realized. He noted that if it were someday needed, it would additionally necessitate training of content deployers outside the ECC. Caum asked if the CCAB's would ultimately subscribe to this system as well, and Lamb deferred that question for later.

Lamb described the data modeling work to create a data modeling approach to create a 'universal episcopal identifier (UEID)' geared around data consistency and quality.

Lamb described AppDev efforts, including some specific projects, including the GC legislative system. Lamb mentioned (to our great joy) that we are in discussion with the Presbyterian Church to review some of their GC successes. Seitz mentioned specifically an interest in the ability to display resolution changes and amendments in real time, as well as a more sophisticated voting system.

He moved on to some goals for the 2004-2005 horizon. Among these were groupware & collaboration systems. He articulated a philosophy that new development work should not initiate within this organization – it's not a software development agency. He then described the goals of a potential groupware & collaboration system. They intend to have it deployed in a test mode within six weeks for a group of 'early adopters' to evaluate. The Chair asked what plan there is to promulgate the UEID system out to a wider group of users, such as every parishioner, for example. We had some discussion about the viability and scalability of this system. We're interested in being involved with this issue as it moves forward.

Lamb described the work around the National Ad Campaign plans. We asked how they'd coordinated with the EC Communicators.

Lamb enumerated additional goals, including voice/data audit and development of a group registration process for CCAB's through the GC Office. Also, the reorganization of Web Services and MIS/IT into Technology Services and the development of solid guidelines regarding the development versus outsourcing cost balance. They are deliberately working toward a more cost-realistic service level agreement that nonetheless reflects the collaborative ethic of this organization.

Lamb discussed a number of information protection challenges faced by the reality of administering an enterprise-class network. Also planning a proper data center in 815 for centralized location (they have apparently been intentional about considering outsourcing of the data center, and it apparently is not cost-effective).

There was a discussion about the technology strategy, which appear geared toward an understanding of how technology will be used plus a more sophisticated understanding of 'TCO' – total cost of ownership. A big question that we will need to be able to answer for our systems is how we will know whether the systems we deliver are answering the 'business need' that brought the system forward originally. Rick Lamb departed at this point, and we were rejoined by Bob Williams. Williams suggested a triad of folks talking about technology: someone from the Office of Communications, someone from the Standing Commission, and someone from the EC Communicators. The Commission also mentioned it would be valuable to look into the availability of talented folks throughout the Church who are very facile with technology decision making. We also felt that a subcommittee working on technology would be tremendously valuable in providing itself as a resource to collaborate on technology decision making. Generally we felt it would be good to allow folks to telecommute where feasible and contribute more freely that way.

We transitioned to a discussion of the Advertising Collaborative and how the ECC is planning to purchase some work from the Diocese of Atlanta. There are two test broadcasts coming up from the National Cathedral for telecasts of the services one those occasions. There would be some national advertising print space purchased. McMahon asked about follow-up to determine its effectiveness and penetration. In fact, this may take a while to really catch on, since this will be the first of these such offerings. Finally, there will be a spring advertising buy, largely timed to reach a significant GenX audience with new advertising creative content. There was a discussion of the $1000 for each diocese that participated in the advertising push. There was a suggestion that this program be either reopened or reiterated once there's new creative content for those dioceses who did not participate last time to review again.

Williams asked us to consider how we might plan for the funding request for the upcoming triennium. He emphasized the need for financial support of the National Advertising Campaign. Seitz recommended a funding model fueled by matching contributions from some of the wealthiest parishes and donors in the church. The Chair reminded us of our contacts among the EC Communicators. and reminded us of how the Ad Campaign got funded at the last GC.

The Director also mentioned the need for effective communications planning and execution in translation. He also underscored the continuing need to conduct effective technology decision making and thanked us for our time and willingness to work with him as our joint mission develops.

The Commission recessed for the day at 6:04 PM.