I. Charge: The Communications subcommittee of the Discernment committee was first convened on May 12, 2008. The subcommittee was tasked with communicating the process of discernment and publicizing the efforts and needs of each subcommittee on a timely basis and effective manner. Our charge was to employ every possible method of communication in order to assure subcommittees are supported, parishioners are informed and encouraged to partake in the efforts, and the process remains open and transparent.

II. Accomplishments: Our subcommittee met regularly during these seven weeks, communicated with each other daily through e-mail and/or telephone calls, and has employed the following efforts to further the discernment process:

• World Wide Web Communications – We drew on the St. Thomas’ web site www.stthomasdc.org and, more importantly, the web site http://growth.stthomasdc.org which was previously established by the St. T’s Communication committee. These assets were of tremendous benefit. The growth site held all of our postings: our mission statement; overviews and history of the discernment process; weekly subcommittee reports; discussion threads; FAQs; resource material on parish growth in general; architecture; capital campaigns; church construction, financing, and administrative resources. Our growth web site provided 24/7/365-accessible web-based communication and also included “tell-a-friend” viral communications capability via email sharing link on the site (reports and articles on the web could be forwarded through e-mail). It also included a link to sign up for the Discernment Committee and any of the subcommittees. It also included a link to submit a web link and submit an article for posting. Before postings, submissions were reviewed and approved by a subcommittee member. Our discussion threads allowed parishioners to read and post suggestions, opinions, concerns, and inspiration to the online Discussion Boards at http://growth.stthomasdc.org/discussions.html . Comments were also posted there by out-of-town parishioners and our architect, Mathew Jarvis. We received 61 responses to our discussion threads. This is a relatively small number but these threads were just one more way to solicit conversation on topics of concern to the Discernment subcommittees.

• Weekly Reporting – In an effort to gather information from each of the subcommittees, our subcommittee developed a report format that we assigned each subcommittee to submit each week. This format covered the following items: Names of co-chairs and contact information, Names of committee members, Date of last meeting, topics covered at the last meeting, Date/time/location of next meeting, Agenda for the next meeting, and Any feedback or information needed to be communicated to the parish. After the first week of requiring submission by e-mail and our uploading each report to the web, we provided each subcommittee with instructions on how to upload their own reports to Growth web site. Once uploaded, someone from our team would need to edit/ approve it. Based on these submissions, the weekly report handout was designed and copies were made on Saturdays. We sent out weekly e-mail reminders; some weeks some of the subcommittees did not upload their reports on time. In these circumstances, we would accept late submissions by e-mail so they could be incorporated into the hand out and uploaded later. If a subcommittee did not submit its weekly report through the website or e-mail, we would have to develop the weekly handout without it.

• Weekly Handout at Sunday Services – A compilation of all subcommittee reports in a uniform format which was handed out with the Order of Service prior to Sunday services. Other items included in this handout were an overview of the discernment process and a land-use map of our property. Copies of this weekly handout were left at the church during the week. This handout looked spectacular and was well received!

• Personal Communications – Per the charge of Clinton Anderson of St. Thomas’ Parish and Eleanor Weis of Holliman Associates at the May 12th meeting, the subcommittee made efforts to speak to everyone in the parish who was not signed up for a discernment committee based upon a list developed by Mike Mattmiller. These in-person conversations or telephone calls were employed to direct attention to the discernment efforts and our subcommittee’s efforts to communicate them. In these conversations, we asked parishioners which modes of communications they preferred and if there were any questions/suggestions that they wanted to provide us. We also encouraged them to participate in the process in whichever way they could. Most parishioners were reached in this manner. There was a diversity of opinion among our subcommittee on this charge; some chose to contact the rest of the parishioners by e-mail. The parishioners who were reached by phone (and those spoken with face-to-face) expressed satisfaction that since our charge of May 12th, communications were reaching them and that they knew they were welcome to partake in the process – regardless of what differing opinions they may have towards future construction or renovation.

• Stationary Interactive Wall Display – Our Discernment Bulletin Board was developed, designed, and constructed by our graphic design expert and displayed in the Guild Room. It had significant eye appeal and provided an opportunity for parishioners to post comments or questions for each of the subcommittees or the discernment committee. To our surprise, this bulletin board has not generated as much use as we had expected. But again, we wanted to do this in our comprehensive approach to our charge. We expect to continue using this board and will post the final subcommittee and discernment committee reports on it.

• E-Mail Blasts – Our subcommittee sent out three e-mail blasts following the April 24, 2008 e-mail from Clinton Anderson, "An invitation to join the St. Thomas' Parish Discernment Process" (this blast was viewed by 145 parishioners and introduced the discernment process and provided links for joining sub-committees). Our Communications subcommittee’s first e-mail blast was sent on May 22, 2008, entitled "DISCERNMENT: Envisioning the Future of Our Physical Space". This e-mail reminded people about the Discernment process, listed summaries of the subcommittees, solicited participation in joining committee efforts, and encouraged people to visit the growth website. This e-mail was viewed by at least 124 parishioners. Our second e-mail blast was sent on May 30, 2008. "The Conversation Continues..." This e-mail provided instructions for using the Discussion boards, advertised the physical discussion boards, and listed information about the subcommittees and their upcoming meetings. This e-mail was viewed by at least 145 parishioners. The third e-mail blast was sent on June 23, 2008, "Walls to be painted orange. Shag carpet in the sanctuary." This e-mail substituted for a printed Sunday handout report that was not included in the Bulletin due to printer problems. It also encouraged parishioners to visit the growth site for the subcommittee reports and to participate in the online discussions. This e-mail was viewed by at least 170 parishioners. With this capability, as well as maintaining the web sites, we did not utilize the Phoenix during the seven week subcommittee discernment period. The Phoenix was scheduled to be published once during this timeframe and the Committee knew the 1st of the month publication date is sometimes delayed. E-mail blasts proved the most timely and reliable mode of electronic communication for us to use.

• Parish Announcements – On most Sundays, an announcement was made at the main morning service by a subcommittee member directing parishioner’s attention to the hand out and often times encouraging parishioners to join in the efforts. Our clergy also made some announcements to this effect. Because we produced a weekly handout, we decided not to utilize the announcements page in the Order of Service. We noted that a previous week’s subcommittee meeting times were placed on the announcements page one week, but didn’t know the source of that error.

III. Onward - As one of our communications gurus stated, “In communication terms, we have used all the channels of a direct, multi-channel marketing model. Not bad at all! The next goal will be to apply this to the actual capital campaign; if/when we determine the need for one. Perhaps at that point, we can look at it more macroscopically to create a matrix for each step of communications in the process early on, prior to implementing. It's even possible to automate that process more if we have everything in order. Exciting stuff!” Well said - whether or not these tasks remain in our subcommittee’s hand or in another’s!

In the meantime, while other subcommittees disband after completing their final reports, the Communications Subcommittee is aware that discernment communication needs to continue as the Discernment Committee meets this summer, analyzes the subcommittee reports, asks further questions, composes its own report, and submits its recommendations to the Vestry. We will continue to work to assist the Discernment Committee in getting the word out and to ensure that the process remains open and transparent.

We have asked the co-chairs of the Discernment Committee for the agenda and dates/times for the Discernment Committee meetings this summer and will report that information as soon as we receive it. With the first Discernment Committee meeting expected for the second week of July, we need this information as soon as possible.