Recently I spoke to a f/Friend of mine who I had not seen in over a year. She is in her later 70's and she has been clerk of our midsized meeting for the last 12 years. But recently the nominating committee told her that "because she is so busy that they wanted her to have a break" by which they meant that they were not renewing her nomination as clerk. They offered her no other role either.
There are several things wrong with this picture. One is that she was allowed to serve for 12 years as clerk to begin with. That reflects either poor nominating practice or an absence of other leadership and a too convenient reliance on those who will continue serving. It makes sense that if other leaders finally came along or someone finally named the bad practice of over reliance on some Friends that they finally addressed it. But what else is wrong with this picture is how it was addressed. Friends, it is not Quaker plain speech to project onto someone, to tell them they are too busy, when they themselves have not made that complaint. (Yes she had complained about busyness in a way that each of us do when pressed for time....but not in the way that we do when we state I have too much on my plate. I need relief.) It seems fundamentally inappropriate to decide for someone that they are too busy. It might be a very good question to ask. Or in the case of people who really do try to do too much and do it poorly it wound be Quaker honesty to say "We see that when you are doing, x, y, z and A and B that you are making mistakes. We are having trouble with some of the mistakes. We feel like this won't work unless you are willing to release some things which things are you willing to release. And to involve the person in solving how things will become manageable again. The final thing wrong is that her position was taken away without giving her any other role which seems to imply that she suddenly has no value or role to play in her beloved Meeting.
When Friends have served long terms because of unusual circumstances where nothing else is possible it should be established clearly by the nominating committee: "we normally only have two 2 year terms for clerk. Because the incoming clerk's partner was diagnosed with cancer we are asking you to do one more term. We regret having to over extend your term and we will replace you at the end of this term." The nominating committee, the person in question and the Meeting should avoid idea that there is any position that only one person can do. That is pride and incorrect. Someone with no experience will do it differently and perhaps less well but this maybe divinely ordered growth on their part, or a much needed chance for the Meeting to experience change. But if someone has been needed in an extra term it is good to have it set up with the expectation that the term will end so it can be celebrated when it ends! Leadership is always an act of love and sweat and we need to celebrate each other for what we give to our Meetings. When a nominating committee if being indirect and not genuine in their communication about end of term, the person is left to wonder did they screw up, did people not see their labor, and ultimately where they unappreciated which certainly leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I strongly suspect that they were so worried about hurting her feelings by telling her they did not want her to be clerk any more that they made up this story they were taking care of her. The thing is they were not so it actually did hurt her feelings because she was left to wonder all the question above and if she had done something wrong.
This is one of the many reasons why it is good Quaker practice to have terms for committee service (even if different for some positions) and to have a limit on how many consecutive terms a person can serve. Our Meetings have many positions so certainly a person has other places to serve. It is thinking too narrowly about any/all of us to think we have only one or even two places we can well serve the Meeting. It is possible to set up situations where people who have not served on a committee come on under someone's leadership and learn by serving with them and then leader rotates off and the newer member is ready to step up. This is also good practice to create the conditions to grow leadership.
But what, I can hear someone saying, if there really is not enough people to serve? Well that is a crisis best faced rather than papered over by having some people lead forever. It both burns out people and it creates a failure to face the cross roads the group is at. I recall one year at my Yearly Meeting the nominating committee came to the session and reported that after a whole year of "begging" people to serve and still having 17 unfilled positions they were laying themselves down and asking the Yearly Meeting to face the real issue - that we had a committee structure too big for who we now were. I thought it an inspired move. (The sitting clerk handled it very badly.) If we name that we don't have enough people then it does give us the opportunity to look at how do we need to simplify and at what point do we even have to lay a Meeting down/
Simultaneous to this my F/friend is also a founding member of a Quaker organization for whom she has played many leadership roles over decades. In that situation, it has sometimes been the case that her involvement made others feel they could not match her enthusiasm or commitment, so hang back from really fully engaging themselves. Being aware of that, and the fact that she will not live forever, she has herself tried to step back again, so there is space for others to learn rules and take leadership. But when someone who had agreed to be clerk of that organization abruptly withdrew they turned back to my f/Friend and asked her to step back in, only to later rather abruptly remove her when they felt they had found a replacement. It seems to me that this again fails to see her as a person rather than a needed function or skill set.
This is where the nominating committee needs to sit down in a very honest conversation with her about what does succession and right use of her gifts look like? To say (which she knows but as if the person does not) "You have played an essential role in this organization. We would be no where if but for you....and you will not live forever. How can you help us plan for the time when you will no longer be here? What do you see needs to be passed on and how? What role do you want to play as those shoes are filled?"(There is a reason why there are "emertis" roles in institutions. They are a chance to retain institutional knowledge and wisdom while it is still here with us.) It is also I think incumbent on a group like this to find a way to publicly celebrate the role of a founder and not just let them diminish away. Or worse yet have things taken away from them one by one "your services no longer needed" until they feel a pariah to their own organization.
No ones service should become an institution. No one is irreplaceable. On the other hand no one who has served their Quaker Meeting or institution should feel like they are used and thrown away, a disposable in a throw away culture. Our culture needs to be one that celebrates people and has a right place for everyone and knows how to celebrate gifts given.
