ENHCC

The organisation of the Network

It was only about a day after I composed today's Morning Prayer service that I realised that the hymn I chose to be sung by the Orthodox Choir of Turku talked about the "net" which God has drawn us in. God has truly drawn us into a "net" of mutual concern and service, a net of ministry that ties together many levels of professional disciplines, a "net" made up of relationships both on an inter-faith, organizational and personal level, a "net" which promises to become firm in its aims and in its standards, catching the mode of the present, flowing forward to the future, resisting the undercurrents which may harm it or entangle it. We have been called together into God's "net" of ministers who serve those who are sick and those who are suffering. This "net" encompasses the faiths and health care organizations of European nations. Now that we have decided the common standards of our ministry, we are called to see how this new "net" must "work".

When the first European consultation of Hospital Chaplaincy took place some 14 years ago, I am sure that the participants had no idea that their efforts would blossom into a network in which 41 representatives from 25 countries and all the major Christian Faiths are linked together. Up until the last Consultation, this gathering was a way of sharing, which seemed somewhat painless. It seems though that when we decided in Crete, at our last consultation, to bind ourselves into a real net, our differences became more apparent. The difference of language, the difference of ecclesiology, the difference of structural organization and the difference of terminology presented barriers that, in many instances, caused misunderstandings. But in spite of these differences and problems, a "declaration" was formed and a basis for mutual ties was established. The approval of the standards at this Seventh Consultation by an impressive body of representatives marks the common ground in which we not only relate to one another but also in the way we minister.

The way our 'net" "works", its organization, should follow both the conclusions of Crete and those of Turku. In other words, it should promote an on-going process of building relationships through mutual sharing and a support system in achieving and implementing the standards we have decided on. This means that our purpose for existing is not just getting together every two years. It is far and beyond that. It is the continual rooting of health care chaplaincy through out Europe on all the levels we have discussed. It is a constant point of reference and a source of referral. We now are tied closer together then ever before and the ties of our net must remain strong.

The Seventh Consultation is perhaps the first gathering that resulted from a consolidated effort by an "organizational/coordinating" committee. This committee was formed on a voluntary basis. It worked very closely by way of e-mail, but its real work took place in Istanbul, at the pre-Consultation meeting.

During our meeting, the members of the committee all agreed that, in order for the Network to fulfil its purpose, we need some sort of structure. More precisely, the Network needs to be held together by a coordinator and a Network Committee.

The position of the coordinator is somewhat different from the role of the host of the consultation. It is someone we can refer to, represent the Network, if necessary, and who can encourage and implement the continuing ties we have made between us. It also entails contacts with various officials, planning and charting the future of the Network, as decided at the bi-annual consultations. He, or she, would bring together the Network committee that will iron out the details of the consultations and discuss on-going problems. The co-ordinator and the Network committee should be up for appointment at each consultation so that the structure can be "owned" by the members of the network and that new people can feel involved.

The big change between Crete and Turku is the web site. I would like to thank our dearest Fred Coutts from Scotland for his creativity, ingenuity, industriousness and personal financial expense in creating the website of our Network. The added flavour of this site is his personal and genuine concern and warm-heartedness. Having organized the Cretan Consultation when e-mail was still a bit rare for many members, I know how the web and e-mails can play a major role in our communicating. The website gives us some sort of "visible identity". But the website needs some real structure behind it. The website can be the point of contact but any contacts need to be passed on to the co-ordinator.

There is the other problem of finances. There are some running costs (rental of web space and registration of the name). Fred covered the site's original setting up from his Church's budget. Kirsti has funded the next stage from the Turku budget. Fred proposed that each consultation budget should pay for the running costs of the website.

We all are aware that it is very difficult for representatives to contribute to a general fund. Most of us have a hard time getting money for our own organizations alone. There is also the problem of transferring funds...not everyone is in the Euro Zone! One difficulty might be any expenses incurred by the co-ordinator. The co-ordinator's costs might be office expenses - paper, envelopes, stamps, telephone calls and a certain amount of travel - perhaps to one meeting between consultations. It does not seem fair that one party should meet these expenses. Again, it has been suggested that we include the "co-ordinator's expenses" into the budget for the next consultation.

In closing allow me to add an observation made by His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew at the conclusion of the pre-consultation meeting. He reminded us that if we do not base our work on love, both in our work as pastors and our Network of Health Care Chaplaincy, regardless of what organizational structure we form and which aim and standard we agree on, our efforts will be in vain.

top

1. What is the difference between network and association?
2. There are too many real differences for an association, but a network might work. An association needs more organisation.
3. Network is more inclusive - anyone can be a part. Association needs rules.
4. Network is more open and flexible - but who is a member? How do you become a member? What does it mean to be a member? How big can the network grow?
5. What will the network do?
6. Will the national associations accept the Network? What is the relationship?
7. Network will get status when the Standards are accepted by the associations.
8. Will associations who are not present in Turku accept the Standards?
9. How can we work together? On-going relationships, going forward together.
10. Cretan Declarations talks about the task for a future network.
11. What is the goal? Why do we come together every two years?
12. We can share educational programmes - share resources.
13. The Network is more about organisation of chaplaincy work - raising profile - how to implement - rather than CPE processes.
14. Network will influence the quality of health care chaplaincy provision through the Standards.
15. Cretan Declaration and Standards are a "lever" to approach churches and authorities about what is happening in the chaplaincy world "out there". Personal relationships are built up through the Consultations. Co-ordinator could be a "presence" at other gatherings.
16. Co-ordinator and Committee is a good idea. Commitment is only for two years - if there is no work then we can depart from the idea. There is plenty of work to do, to promote high quality health chaplaincy. The network has grown quickly over the years, with new people joining.
17. Co-ordinator could encourage people to write for Journals etc
18. Germany (EKD) does not have such a person to co-ordinate - they are now considering this.
19. There will be different reactions to the Standards in different Associations. Still influential even if not formally accepted. Co-ordinator might respond to questions and requests from local associations.
20. The Tasks of the Committee:
a. Enabling the Network - linking/connecting associations/churches together - putting groups in touch with one another - identifying new groups etc
b. Representing the network to outside world - eg EU etc (Commission on Bioethics)
c. Collecting views
d. Feeing material into the website
e. Policy Development
f. Monitoring what is happening to the Standards
21. Give a mandate to the existing organising committee. See if some money can be found.
22. Standards would be useful in Latvia.
23. What about other fields of chaplaincy? Standards could be useful in military, prison chaplaincy etc
24. What about the finances?
25. There might be a conflict with "day job" for a volunteer committee. We would need some economic resources.
26. Consultation budget could fund the committee but needs to be transparent.
27. Church of England might be able to contribute 500 Euros
28. Funding through Consultation budget seems the easiest.
29. It is important that those who are least able to pay should be included - whatever the system. This is an important principle.
30. Could organisations or individuals contribute a "membership fee"? - any shortfall met from Consultation budget.
31. When we accept the standards, the first target has been reached. The solutions for the financial problems are there, but not yet discovered. Projects might produce funding. We all need to advertise the network.
32. Is there EU money available? Kirsti tried unsuccessfully. The Network did not fit into the "rules" of the EU. They would rather support "one of" events - projects.
33. 2 steps completed - Cretan Declaration and Standards -we need to decide on visions, steps and tasks, then go to the churches etc. Co-ordinator is vital - perhaps needs a substitute to deputise when he/she is not available.
34. Need to define tasks before we set a budget. Be careful not to set too high a budget.
35. If we pay a fee we are sending a message back to churches etc that the Network is important.
36. Do not over emphasise the problems with money. The network started from very small beginnings. Someone paid for us all to come to Turku.
37. Website is important to give identity to the network. A looser structure can encourage new people/ associations to join. Budget should added to the consultation fees.
38. The Network has grown from personal meetings and "friendships" but is now growing. Need to inform other people about what is going on. Who can do that? This will strengthen the Network and help money to come. Only way at the present is to include costs in Consultation budget.
39. Where is the "Network" linked? - should it be to some bigger organisation - WCC etc? Lutheran World Federation Assembly in Canada - subject: Health care - should we send someone? Need for links with EU in some way.
40. We need to identify associations etc not yet linked to the network.
41. You need a co-ordinator who is "freed up" to do this important work. (supported by a secretary)

top

Future of the Network and the appointment of the Co-ordinator and Committee
[Saturday 15 June 2002, 09.30]

COMMITTEE [Go to Committee Page]
It was proposed and unanimously accepted that the existing committee should continue with the addition of two new members (making a total 6, two of whom should change at each Consultation). Roel Hekking was added to the committee and agreed to use his contacts with the EU institutions on behalf of the Network. After a discussion among the Roman Catholic Representatives, Kathleen O'Connor was added to the group to give a Roman Catholic perspective. Marlène Inauen will act as her deputy and is willing to consider joining the committee in 2004.

The Committee will be: Kirsti Aalto, Kathleen O'Connor [with Marlène Inauen as deputy], Fred Coutts, Roel Hekking, Fr Stavros Kofinas, Michael Möller-Herr.

CO-ORDINATOR [Go to Co-ordinator's Page]
Fr Stavros was unanimously appointed Co-ordinator for the next two years.

NEXT CONSULTATION
Michael's offered (on behalf of the EKD) to host the next consultation in Berlin in 2004. This was accepted. The dates would be Wednesday-Sunday 1-5 September 2004. The cost is likely to be 400-500 Euros The needs of countries where chaplaincy is still developing will be taken into account.

FINANCE
Any bank account should be in the name of the co-ordinator and another committee member. Any "offerings" should be for the period between consultations (2 years). It might be easier for organisations to budget annual contributions. The likely budget for the two years period would be about 5000 Euros. About 100 Euros per organisation/delegate might provide this. Some could give more, some might not be able to give at all. There is a need to provide some money now to finance the Network for the next two years. In the future it might be partly funded from the budget of the Consultation. There may be funding available from other (not chaplaincy/church) sources. The committee will discuss the likely need of funding. Those who are able, are invited to send Contributions to the Co-ordinator who will open a bank account for this purpose.

top