Excerpt from the minutes of IYM Representative Council   held 11-10-2012  Recommendation from the Indiana Yearly Meeting Reconfiguration Task Force.   Tom Hamm, member of the Reconfiguration Task Force, presented the recommendation of the Task Force. “At the called Representative Council on September 29, 2012, we were not able to reach unity to approve the reconfiguration plan as presented at that time.  It was the sense of the meeting, however, that some revision to the plan by the Reconfiguration Task Force might make it acceptable to all Friends.  The documents present this revised plan.  The revisions include a proposal for a more proportional division of yearly meeting assets, language acknowledging the pain that many Friends feel at the prospect of division, proposals for opportunities for continued fellowship, and a timeline that reflects these revisions.  “Recommendation from the Indiana Yearly Meeting reconfiguration Task Force for Approval at the Representative Council 11th Month 10, 2012 “Indiana Yearly Meeting finds itself in an almost unprecedented situation for the Religious Society of Friends – acknowledging that it is in such a state of disunity that it can no longer remain a united body.  This is an occasion for sadness for nearly everyone concerned, the sadness that if, as we have always believed, God called us to unity, that we have not found the way to maintain that unity.  On that probably all of us would agree.  But it is a symptom of our disunity that we name the source of our disunity variously – Scriptural authority, Gospel order, the power of the yearly meeting, leadership, equality, sin, and in many other ways.  Given this reality, we, the Reconfiguration Task force, propose the following as a way forward that we think can be life-giving and allow monthly meetings to pursue ministry as each can discern best the leadings of the spirit. A.       IYM (the organization) will remain intact, and those meetings choosing option B will continue to be part of this body.  For the majority of Friends in Indiana Yearly Meeting this will represent no organizational change, although the authority of the yearly meeting to hold its member meetings accountable will have been clearly affirmed.B.      Those meetings desiring a yearly meeting that allows for greater autonomy (option A) will be set off from IYM into a newly created “yearly meeting” or equivalent association.  They will be released from obligations for 2013 assessments.C.      Monthly meetings that have been unable or unwilling to choose between YM “A” and YM “B” are asked to make a different choice:  are they willing to affirm being part of a yearly meeting with authority as laid out in the YM “B”

statement distributed earlier this year?  If not, they will be released from the yearly meeting.D.      Monthly meetings that have not made a decision about their future relationship with the yearly meeting will have a grace period until yearly meeting sessions in 2013 to do so.  They will not be liable for assessment payments until a decision is made.  Members may complete terms of service as IYM committee members or officers but will not be eligible for reappointment.  If the decision is for B, then the monthly meeting will be responsible for retroactive payment of assessments.E.       To promote ongoing fellowship, we urge the following: 1.        That USFW and Quaker Men remain undivided and bring together interested Friends from both sides.2.       Friends of Yearly Meeting A and released monthly meetings would continue to participate, as appropriate, in events at Quaker haven.3.       We encourage inter-visitation among meetings as becomes those who claim the name of Friends.4.       We assume that friends of both yearly meetings would remain welcome visitors at gatherings of the other.F.        We recommend that the yearly meeting records be handled as follows:1.        Both groups will maintain the current rule of Faith and Practice that ownership of monthly and quarterly meetings records cannot be transferred to any organization but the monthly or quarterly meeting or the current yearly meeting repository.2.       The two yearly meetings will share ownership of the yearly meeting records and the records of laid down preparative, monthly, and quarterly meetings.3.       The Earlham Friends collection will remain the depository for the IYM records.  This may be changed by agreement of the two yearly meetings, or the finding of a neutral and qualified third party that records are not accessible or receiving care according to the best practices of the archival profession.4.       That the two yearly meetings share a custodian of records who is a member of one of the yearly meetings.G.       The following financial arrangements will be put in place:1.        Monthly meetings choosing to leave IYM will receive clear title to their properties, but with continuing obligations for any mortgages or other obligations to the yearly meeting.2.       IYM will cover legal expenses up to $5,000 for obtaining quit claim deeds and the cost of creating a new 501 (c) (3) organization if desired.3.       Ministers affiliating with YM “A” or its equivalent or affiliating with an independent monthly meeting formerly part of IYM will continue to be eligible for support from the disbursing Board, the Scholarship & Loan Fund, and the Ministerial Training/Continuing Education Fund.

4.       Yearly Meeting “A” will receive a proportional share plus 50 percent of their proportion of IYM’s liquid assets as of December 31, 2012, based on adult membership as of December 31, 2011, minus any unpaid assessments still owing.  This is in lieu of a proportional share of various endowments in which YM “A” has a legitimate interest but which would be difficult to split.5.       Other yearly meeting assets and endowments will be allocated as per the following document.  PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS TO A NEWLY CREATEDYEARLY MEETING OR ASSOCIATION 1.        The task force recommends that the following funds of special interest to Friends likely to comprise the new yearly meeting be taken from the existing IYM endowment and transferred to the newly created organization.  Note:  The value of endowment funds change daily.  The amounts listed below are approximations based on recent reports plus the value of any distributions from these endowments currently in the YM treasury. Earlham School of Religion Endowment                                            $103,828Earlham College General Fund                                                                  4,314Ramallah Friends School endowment                                                     14,817Geoffrey Sawyer Fund                                                                              194,0012.        The task force also recommends a proportional distribution of unrestricted funds in the endowment based upon the following formula.  The percentage of adult membership participating in a new yearly meeting or association multiplied by 1.5 will be the percentage of unrestricted endowment funds given.  For example, 10% of membership multiplied by 1.5 results in a 15% distribution.  Based on an approximate value of $322,000.00 of unrestricted funds, a 15% distribution would be $48,300.00 less any unpaid assessments owed.3.       The task force recommends that if and when the Fort Wayne property is sold, after expenses incurred by IYM over the years related to that property are reimbursed, a proportional distribution of the remaining sale income be made based on the above formula.  For example, if the property were sold for $250,000.00 approximately $50,000.00 would be used to cover yearly meeting expenses and the remaining $200,000.00 would be the basis of a proportional distribution.  15% of $200,000.00 would be $30,000.00.4.       The task force recommends that the Fountain City property be deeded to the new yearly meeting/association.  We do not have an appraised value for this property at this time.5.       The task force recommends that all endowments under the name of a specific Monthly meeting that will no longer be a part of IYM be released according to the request of that Meeting.

6.       The task force recommends that pastors of reconfigured Meetings no longer in IYM be eligible to receive the benefits of the IYM Disbursing board funds, Scholarship and Loan Fund, Continuing Education fund, and the Lilly funded Ministerial  Excellence Fund.  Meetings would continue to be able to receive loans from the IYM Revolving Loan Fund. Dortha Meredith, Richmond First Friends, wanted clarification regarding the continuation of Indiana Yearly Meeting and what it meant that those choosing “B” would continue to be “part of the body.” Tom Hamm, task force member, responded that there was disagreement about whether the proposal that was approved on October 1, 2011, envisioned that IYM would be laid down or that IYM would continue to exist as a yearly meeting and set off another yearly meeting, or whether that decision was up for further discernment.  After the task force met with the IYM treasurer and attorney, it became clear that to lay down the yearly meeting and convey its assets and endowments to the two entities  would be extremely time consuming and would use a big portion of its assets in legal costs.  So the recommendation from the task force was that IYM as the legal entity would continue to exist, and since most monthly meetings in the yearly meeting indicated that they preferred “B”, that “B” would be the entity that continued as IYM.  The “B” description is to just affirm what YM “B” is currently. Keith Huffman, Dewart Lake, asked about the Underground Connection, the group that was meeting in the former Fountain City property.  It was reported that they are no longer meeting on the church property.  Keith also wondered what would happen as far as financial distribution to those three or four meetings that are released from IYM but do not become associated with another yearly meeting.  Tom Hamm responded that whatever organization those meetings form would take possession of a proportional share of assets, like a fellowship or association, legally indistinguishable from a yearly meeting.  If some chose to be independent, they would not share in any distribution of assets, and those assets would remain in IYM. David Brindle, task force member, wondered about financial assets of those choosing another yearly meeting. Tom Hamm answered that any monthly meeting joining another yearly meeting would not carry assets with them. 

Don Wright, Fairmount, asked about the $5,000.00 allotted for legal costs and quit claim deeds, asking whether that was per meeting or total. Greg Hinshaw, Presiding Clerk, answered that it is a $5,000.00 total maximum for those meetings leaving the yearly meeting.   Don also asked what the rationale was for giving Yearly Meeting “A” a proportional share plus 50% of their proportion of IYM’s liquid assets as of December 31, 2012, based on adult membership, minus any unpaid assessments still owing. Tom Hamm reported that they thought about reviewing and dividing up all the funds, i.e. budget and committees, but re-thought that process because in trying to divide hundreds of funds and budget line items it would just be too time consuming.  For simplicity, it was easiest to go with the 50% recommendation.  Terry Coffey, New Castle, questioned the recommendation that both yearly meetings share a custodian of records who is a member of one of the yearly meeting.  He asked what would happen if the home meeting of the current custodian of records, Tom Hamm, decides to become independent?   Could special consideration be given if that is the scenario?  Greg Hinshaw and Tom Hamm both answered that yes, special consideration would be given in that situation. Terry Coffey asked what would happen to a meeting if it decides to become independent in the short term, but before the deadline decide to go with “B” or “A”, would they still be able to get back into the process that everyone else will be going through? Greg Hinshaw responded that a meeting must choose by February 28, 2013 (to be eligible for the proportional distribution of assets.)  If years down the road they want to get back into the yearly meeting, application can be made at that time. Joe Kelly, Friends of the Light asked if a meeting becomes independent, would the title to the meetinghouse still be granted to them? Greg Hinshaw replied that yes, they will get the title to their meetinghouse unless there is a loan held on it by the yearly meeting. Joyce Kimes, Liberty, read from the proposed distribution of funds, number 6, “The task force recommends pastors of reconfigured meetings no longer in IYM be eligible to receive the benefits of the IYM disbursing board funds, scholarship

and loan fund, continuing education fund, and the Lilly funded ministerial excellence fund.  Meetings would continue to be able to receive loans from the IYM revolving loan fund.”  She wondered why that concession was made. Doug Shoemaker, General Superintendent, responded that meetings that no longer are associated with IYM may still have rights to those funds, and the task force thought that if we were going to err, they would err on the side of generosity and grace, and allow meetings and pastors to continue to have access to those because their churches originally had given to those funds.   There will be no time limit on them. Jacob Isaacs, Hinkle Creek, had a potential suggestion or compromise, pointing out that it could be possible that yearly meeting “A” had a reciprocal agreement that yearly meeting “B” could have access to their specified funds as well, i.e. the Geoffrey Scholarship Fund.  Leigh Eason, West Elkton, appreciates the integrity testimony that IYM “B” is striving to maintain in this financial endeavor.  Ray Ontko, task force member, reported that the funds being discussed were funds given to IYM over a long period of time, and they felt that all the current funds ought to be available to all of the meetings as of today that are part of IYM.  The task force’s choice was to either carve those funds into two pieces, or keep them intact and continue to administer those funds as needed.  There is a principal of fairness, as Jacob pointed out, that additional funds would be generated and could be used by both.  Any additional funds of that nature could be set aside in a different one that cannot be used by the other yearly meeting.  We are talking about current funds being locked down for use by both.  Any new funds would be used by “A” only if "A" formed them. Ann Smith, West River, wondered if we had created a hardship for both organizations if the designated funds are for a designated purpose, and if they are removed from the IYM investment fund, that makes the total picture smaller for both organizations, so that makes less interest accumulated, but, also, will that mean there has to be two investment boards to help handle these matters?  What is the advantage of splitting those distributions up?  No matter what group they belong to, why switch from one pot to the other when it can make more money staying in one pot? Ray Ontko, task force member, responded that they wondered if it was good stewardship to have two investment boards, two investments, each of which has to sustain separate overhead costs.  The task force took this approach to acknowledge that some funds were more closely aligned from one group to the

other, but, in taking responsibility for those funds, both have a sense of stewardship.  They thought it best to just leave the endowment work with yearly meeting “B”, but have a committee from “A” work through the logistics within their yearly meeting. Lincoln Blake, First Friends Richmond, questioned item “E-2”, where it states that “Friends of yearly meeting ‘A’ and released monthly meetings would continue to participate, as appropriate, in events at Quaker Haven.  What does the word “appropriate” mean in this sense and who would resolve any conflicts over this issue? Tom Hamm explained, for example, that the committee left open the possibility that yearly meeting “A” might want to hold various camps at Quaker Haven, but that would be for Quaker Haven to work out with them; secondly, they would certainly recognize that there might be events or camps, that Western or IYM might decide they want to restrict to its own group.  They would have a right to do that under this proposal. David Brindle, in response to Ann’s question, said that after they had been charged with looking into fair distribution at the September 29 meeting, they saw that it was not reasonable to take ALL funds and split all of them up, including all line items, missions, endowments, etc.  This was an attempt to look at funds that were supported in large measure by “not B”’, and to separate them out to go with that organization. Greg Hinshaw said he feels that the members attending today have agreed that the task force has done what we asked them to do on September 29.  He stated that he sensed that most Friends appreciated the direction that the task force had taken. Grant Reeves, Salem, suggested making sure a reversion clause is included in the event that the new group is not actually formed.  In that event, these assets would return to the stewardship of Indiana Yearly Meeting. Chris Nicholson, West Richmond, stated that she is having difficulty with “B” being called IYM, and with “not B” not being given that name.  All have invested many years in IYM, and she will always be IYM.  She feels strongly that we are rushing the process, and those who say they may need more time, say a year or two, to join another association will lose any connection with a meeting that they have financially supported for many years.  She would feel better with the freedom of financial support going with them if they joined an association by Yearly Meeting time in 2014.   We are slow in making our decisions, but

development and change takes time.  She does not like to think that some people here will be thinking of other people as “not IYM.”  Paul Hubbard, Sycamore, said he has great respect for those who have served many years in IYM, but we have been working on this for three or four years, spending thousands of hours, and people have to make choices.  We need to get on with the business of the Lord.  Susan Kirkpatrick, Bethel, has great respect for many sides of the fence of IYM, and she has been thinking about an analogy that would relate to this.  She then presented a medical analogy of a child affected with a flesh eating disease, and within a twenty-four hour period the parents are faced with some grave decisions:  either amputate the leg or put the child’s life in danger.  Experts come to the parents, asking both parents to sign a consent form.  The leg is amputated with great anguish and grief, and they lose the dream and plan for his future.  The other scenario could be that both parents need to sign the consent form, but only one parent agrees, and they decide to wait.  Both legs then become infected, the infection moves to the abdominal cavity, and the child will now die as the parents watch in horror.   Do we understand the analogy?  This problem within the yearly meeting has been a chasm that has grown deeper, and we have had opportunity for reconfiguration and reconciliation.  We have tried and tried, but we cannot do it any longer!  We have a choice; we can sign the consent form and the ‘body’ can survive, not in the way it once did, not with the same goals and outcomes, but the body can survive, with integrity and a future, as we continue to do the ministry of the Lord.  We nominated these people as our task force and we prayed over their work.  They brought us their recommendations numerous times.  We have to do this or the body will die.  The infection is non-treatable. Jameson McGrew, New Castle, stated that he is not happy with what has been happening, but it is something that we need to deal with and move on.  The task force has come forward with a reasonable plan and suggestion, and we need to approve it. Terry Coffey, New Castle, hears concerns from Richmond, along with the concern with smaller meetings who cannot or will not make up their mind.  He suggested freezing monies until churches make a decision. Howard Lee, Westfield, appreciates all the hard work that has been done by the task force.  Their meeting approves moving forward with the task force’s recommendation.  He asked what would happen to those monthly meetings who cannot decide by yearly meeting 2013.  Will they automatically be severed from IYM?  And what if that meeting doesn’t want to be severed?  

 Greg Hinshaw confirmed that those who do not make a specific choice for “B” will be released by the yearly meeting and their quit claim deed will be given to them for their property.  Grant Reeves, Salem, reminded the members that the issue is not whether to cut the leg off; the problem is when you cut a leg off it generally dies.  These meetings, if cut off, will die.  He is not sure what to do with that problem, and he does not want to push one way or another for moving forward with the process, but his concern is with those in the “A” category.  David Brindle responded to Grant, reminding him that the analogy that Susan had used was just that, an analogy, and he is hoping that those in “A” are not thinking they are the amputated leg.  We are ALL part of the body that needs to survive, the leg that is to be cut off are the parts that are damaging the whole.  Darrell Monroe, Back Creek, voiced their meeting’s desire to move forward with what the task force is proposing. Susan Kirkpatrick, Bethel, said she realizes that every analogy has its problems, and she recognizes that was a risk.  She appreciated David explaining her analogy, and wished that everyone realized that no one is happy about reconfiguration, but we have all been grieved for years.  It does not change what the result needs to be.  We are grieved, but we have hope for resurrection. Catherine Griffith, First Friends Richmond, felt like “B” was not being sensitive to the time factor.  It seems like plenty of time if you are not the one having to make all the decisions.  She wondered if it was possible to have some wiggle room between now and yearly meeting in regards to the financial details and plans for the new yearly meeting. Peggy Caldwell, Little Blue River, and task force member, responded that she feels we have already provided wiggle room for those decisions.  The decision needs to be made, because once they have been made, those choosing “not B” will have the time to begin organizing the “A” group, and they too can move forward and begin organizing.  They understand the grief, feelings of frustration, all these things that all are feeling, maybe even within only the individual monthly meetings.  But we are a body of believers, and they are calling for all to move forward.  When we talk about identifying ourselves with someone, we are ALL a part of the body of Christ. We want to continue to follow the direction of where the Spirit is leading us.  The decisions are clear and sincere.  We respect each other when we accept this recommendation.  The reason for the financial aspect is because it was requested, and it has been spelled out clearly.  This has been

given out of much prayer, anguish, meetings, sadness, but it is time to move forward in a life-giving matter, if we will allow it today.  She also shared her feelings that, given Friends normal disuse of titles, who will eventually use the name “Indiana Yearly Meeting” should not be that important. Ellen Craig, Winchester, feel this is an occasion for sadness for nearly everyone concerned with regards to recognizing our disunity.  She said that this breaks her heart and that we need to ask forgiveness.  Mary Probasco, Richmond First, voiced her opinion that it would be more life-giving for both bodies to have a new name. Jameson McGrew – New Castle, reported that a group of “not B” met at Raysville Friends, and struggled at that meeting even coming up with a new name.  They will be meeting again in January. Leigh Eason, West Elkton, said she realizes we do not want to belabor the problem any longer, but trying to organize a yearly meeting and make it viable is what is concerning many.   If IYM nurtures small meetings, who nurtures the yearly meeting?  How do we create a viable yearly meeting so that all Friends can work together so that we do not hurt one another?  Jesse Vore, Sycamore, spoke regarding the question of a timeline.  The “not B” members have had already over a year to think about where to fit in.   There has been plenty of time, and if you are not with “B”, you are under no obligation of any timeline of establishing whatever entity to decide and develop whatever this new emerging body might look like.  All we are deciding today is if we are going to reconfigure.  There is no pressure to form another association or create a new name today.  Michael Sherman, Rayville, agrees that it is time to make a decision.  He agrees that the financial timeline at the end of February is fine; whether or not a meeting can make a choice beyond then is fine; the money isn’t the issue.  If the money is the issue, then we are doing the wrong thing.  The task force is fair, more than generous, with the extended time, money divisions, etc.  Most meetings know where they stand.  If we cannot make this decision, we cannot do anything as a body of Christ.  He agrees with Grant Reeves’s suggestion about reversion clause, that if we can’t make an association, that money goes back to IYM.  He feels that those who are “not B” should make the most of their “clean slate.”   Make a fellowship of your dreams, which is fully available to you now.  One group sees what we have and is wonderful, another group says this is not wonderful, and we envision something else.  Sometimes we have to just be grownups, and accept reality.

 Shirley Harper, Sycamore, expressed appreciation for Susan’s and others’ comments, and those who realize this is not something new.  They began attending yearly meeting decades ago when their children were little, and there have been hundreds of meetings just like this, even though it was not necessarily about a split in the meetings.  As long as it is postponed, it is not going to get any better.  Ron Shugart, Wabash, was reminded of the serious disagreement between Paul and Barnabas, because Barnabas wanted to take Mark and Paul said no.  They disagreed.  Both of them had important, fruitful ministries.  His prayer is that in this, which he believes in inevitable, both sides will have important, fruitful ministries as well. Cathy Harris, Spiceland, told the story of a member of their meeting, thirty years old, got word on September 29 that she had a new heart on the heart transplant list and is now doing very well.  Cathy said that day was life-changing for not only the woman from her meeting but for her as well.  When we have been wounded by the church, we reject it, but it is very hard to keep in touch with the living Christ.  When we love Jesus but hate the church, we lose both.  The challenge is to forgive the church.  This challenge is great, but the church, as a valid organization, needs our forgiveness, while the church as the living Christ among us, offers forgiveness.  The church is not “over there” but a church of struggling peoples all needing each other. Presiding Clerk Greg Hinshaw said he made the decision to not attend any task force meetings after the last Representative Council meeting because it is an exceeding challenge to be a good clerk and to participate in the deliberations of the task force.  He stated that he did not come with a plan today, except to try to listen and be a good clerk.  He stated that he hears that there is a lot of resignation for what has been proposed, that delaying is not going to change anything, and that the cleavages are deep, but also there is a concern for a timeline and concern for creating a new organization that is viable.  That is something that the task force wrestled with at every meeting – a tradeoff between giving nurture to a new group and seeming paternalistic.  Even the term “A” has been rejected because it was imposed.  He said that he sensed from what he has heard today is that there is a willingness to approve the recommendation with a few modifications:1)       We need to make sure there is a fiduciary responsibility that if an organization is not formed, the assets revert back to IYM; and2)      We need to be respectful of a time for those who will be leaving IYM.  He suggests moving the deadline for choosing a yearly meeting to June 30, 2013. 

Wade Beatty questioned the financial distribution date of August, 2013, with the move of the decision to June 30.  He is concerned about the preparation time for the treasurer in getting the proper figures in order by then.  Ray Ontko responded that the valuation for the assets is still based on the December 31 valuation, and the membership numbers that are used are from the end of 2011, so those figures will still be used.  The only number we will be waiting on will be which meetings are participating in “B” on that date.  The question that he has is that the current deadline for distributing assets is the end of August, and he would suggest we move that date to the end of October. Grant Reeves suggested a date of May 30, 2013, with financial distribution being made by December 31, 2013, giving time between decisions by meetings and the final distribution. Bob Philips, Jonesboro, reminded us that Jesus said if we don’t follow Him we will not get into heaven.  We all have questions, but we need to move forward and not worry about the details.  Greg Hinshaw proposed that we extend the decision-making time as originally presented, with the addition of reversion language, to May 30, 2013.  The date for distribution of assets will be made by December 31, 2013. RC 12 04 The Representative Council APPROVED the recommendation of the reconfiguration task force, altering the date for meetings to make their affiliation choices to May 30, 2013, altering the date for distribution of assets to December 31, 2013, and ensuring that reversion clauses are included in the distribution of assets. The following members of Representative Council asked to stand aside from the decision:  Ellen Craig, Winchester, Grant Reeves, Salem, Dee Dee Davidson, Friends Memorial, Michael Sherman, Raysville, and Dave White, West Elkton. Barbara Barker Jenkins, Richmond First Friends, read a statement from their meeting, saying that after much prayerful consideration, their monthly meeting has not been led to reconfigure, but they will not stand in the way of reconfiguration.  Linda Daniel, Friends Memorial, stated that their meeting has opposed the reconfiguration process, but feels comfortable standing aside. 

The Presiding Clerk asked the Friends who asked to stand aside if they were willing to let the recommendation move forward.  These Friends were willing to do so.  A few moments of silence was held, with Greg Hinshaw closing in prayer.  The meeting concluded with the recitation of The Lord’s Prayer. Greg Hinshaw, Presiding ClerkJanis Sizelove, Recording Clerk