Post GC Eval

July 30, 2018

Greetings to PIN activists and supporters in this in-between moment. General Convention is behind us and we can rightfully bask in the success of three years of hard work, of planning and coordinating strategies that led to the remarkable witness in Austin for Palestinian human rights in legislative hearings and in our subsequent legislative successes. Our energy is high for the work ahead.

Let’s take advantage of this in-between time to reflect on and evaluate PIN’s work during this past triennium. Would you please take the time to add your response to the attached survey, developed by our facilitator Wini Wolfe for a 2016 evaluation of GC 2015?  Any evaluative comments you might contribute will help fill out the picture for all of us in the wider circle of comrades working on behalf of Palestine. “PIN” is shorthand for that circle.

As you scroll down on this page, you will find the compiled results of our evaluation of PIN’s work during the triennium culminating in G.C. 2015.   It may be interesting for you to see how we evaluated our hard work three years ago and how far we have come, working together during this triennium.   The 2015 evaluation may also jog your memory on specific achievements since 2015 … memory is a fragile animal!   Whether you attended the 2016 Retreat in Albuquerque, served on a Working Group, Advisory Group,  Legislative Caucus or the Leadership Team, or just jumped in to help at Convention, your participation in this survey will help us all, so thank you in advance.

August 15 is the closing date for participation in this survey.  All responses will then be collated and shared.

Take survey HERE

Recap and Evaluation of PIN’s efforts re GC 2015                             5 February 2016

What did PIN do before GC 2015?  What specific tasks did it undertake?

1. 2012 PIN Leadership Summit

*Identified GC2015 as a priority

*organized working groups for triennium:  Reception plannning; Education; Local organizing;  Advocacy/GC Strategies

* working group conveners formed the Steering Comm. along with PIN convener, EPF staff and at-large rep

2. GC2015 Reception Planning Group created Liturgy for Wall of Oppression; sought partners in Consultation for intersectionalitty; invited Palestinians, w/funding, for special award to highlight justice work as thematic for Convention
3. Local Organizing Group organized a system of provincial representatives for 8 out of 9 provinces, who would search out and recruit representatives in the dioceses
4. PIN partnered with Institute for Middle East Understanding to create publicity around GC2015 and relevant resolutions
5. Partnered with like-minded GC deputies on Social Justice and International Concerns Comm. around relevant resolutions
6. Sought & established relationship with JVP members and strategized joint activities for GC
7. Prepared and coordinated for Committee testimony by PIN members and partners

What worked well?

1. Relationship with some Committee deputies was well established by time of Convention
2. PIN was well informed before Convention about likely resolutions
3. A good force of PIN members and allies was rallied and ready by time of Convention
4. Consultation reps from EPF enlisted support for our Reception & intersectionality concept

What did not work well? :  PIN was unable to carry out effective pre-convention lobby efforts with active bishops

What did PIN do during GC2015?  What specific tasks did it undertake?

1. PIN and NEC co-hosted Reception at Convention, organized around Wall of Oppressions, built on site; presented Sayre Award to PIN activist, Newland Smith
2. Coordinated strategy sessions with partners and allies
3. PIN exhibited with EPF in Exhibition Hall, coordinating with Canaan Fair Trade sales
4. Testified at Committee hearings and coordinated testimony of allies
5. Communcations thru PINontheGo and the Consultation daily, “Issues”

What worked well?

1. Reception was well-attended and Liturgy of the Wall got strong, positive response
2. Exhibit Hall activity provided opportunities for dialogue and conversation with bishops,

deputies and guests

1. Voices of allied Committee members were forceful with other Committee members
2. Relationship with JVP was strong & effective

1. Committee testimony was eloquent and forceful; Young Adult Delegation was effective

What did  not work well?

1. No effective caucus on floor of HOD
2. Not able to arrange for any Palestinians to testify at hearings
3. No Palestinians were able to accept the invitation to be honored guests at Reception
4.   No formal coordinated lobby efforts with deputies or bishops; not able to persuade any active bishops to speak on behalf of Resolution D016
5. A relatively small presence of PIN members throughout Convention
6. Collaboration with Consultation on EPF Reception and Speaker’s Corner was not fruitful and did not result in the promised visible presence/support for intersectional justice actions at GC

After GC2015 >> What did PIN do after the Convention?  What specific tasks were undertaken?

1. Began conversations about holding a meeting to follow up on GC2015 and prepare for 2018
2. Worked with allies within TEC to organize a delegation to meet with the new Presiding Bishop about Palestine/Israel

What worked well?

1. Leadership Retreat, February 2016 with facilitator Wini Wolfe

What did not work well?

1. No formal debrief
2. No formal follow up with JVP and other allies