Change in meeting attendance procedure - can't figure out why though

by sir82 68 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sir82

  Per a recent letter to elders:

  Beginning September 1, there will be a change to the way attendance is recorded at congregation meetings.

  Currently, attendance is counted at 4 of the 5 meeting (Public Talk, WT Study, Congregation "Bible" Study, and Service Meeting).

  But after Sept. 1, meeting attendance will only be taken at 2 of the meetings - during the "first quarter" of the WT study, and also at the CBS.

  No reason in given for the change in the letter, and I can't figure out why myself.

  The numbers are not published anywhere - the only "official" record is a 6 month average the CO puts together during his visit.

  Why request less information from the congregations, especially when it "costs" nothing to accumulate it in the first place? It just doesn't make sense.

  Anyone have any ideas?
• 

  Soldier77

  Well, if the CO arrangement is supposed to end in the next year (someone can verify this) than I can see why they are cutting it back. The new attendance couting may go along with an arragnement coming out coinciding with the CO cut back.

  Corporate scale down and cut backs.
• 

  Olin Moyles Ghost

  So no more counting heads at the public talk? That's surprising, especially since that's typically the meeting with the highest attendance. I recall it being a point of pride for a congregation to have greater than 100% average attendance at the public talk.

  Anyway, I think the reason is simplification and lack of JW males who are "reaching out." Taking attendance is a Ministerial Servant's job. This is one more thing to take off their plate.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Taking attendance at a certain point allows them to count all the latecomers. Instead of having a different number for the public talk and the Watchtower meeting, they will get the higher number for those who arrive by the first quarter of the WT study and use that in their averages.

  It's silly, but it gets a higher number. I imagine it's the beginning of many counting changes to hide their downfall in attendance. It could just be a smoke screen to drop certain counts like "partakers" or the like. It also might be the beginning of dropping a count of "publishers" and switching to attendees at meetings, so they go for the higher count.
• 

  sir82

  Instead of having a different number for the public talk and the Watchtower meeting, they will get the higher number for those who arrive by the first quarter of the WT study and use that in their averages.

  Except in my experience, attendance always dropped after the Public talk - in every congregation I've been in.

  To get the highest number, they should take the count 5 minutes before the PT ends.
• 

  tresdecu

  I don't think they care about the Pub Talk #s (imho)....indocrtination happens at the WT study and CBS.

  Thanks for the insider info Sir!
• 

  Doubting Bro

  That is very strange. They're so obsessed with numbers that to reduce any number taking is out of line. It really doesn't take any time to actually take a count.

  The thing is that most people never bother to look at the attendance numbers so I'm not so sure they could use that as a smokescreen for dropping other numbers. The Memorial attendance is the only attendance number that most people pay attention to.

  I don't see how this would have anything to do with the rumored CO changes. By the way, my circuit is getting a new CO this year. I would think if they were going to drop the program, they would have just extended the current stays rather than pay for the expense of relocating these folks.

  If they want to really save JWs time and effort, then drop the turning in of fs time.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  It has not been my experience that numbers drop for the WT study from the talk. Talks are now 30 minutes and maybe there are plenty of late people coming who stay for the WT. 5 minutes before the talk ends would probably be a good time, but these guys are just going by statistics accumulated over all the KH's and chose what they chose.

  I'm imagining it's a smoke screen to distract from something bigger.
• 

  Doubting Bro

  I agree with Sir's point on the lower attendance at the WT study. You usually lose between 5-10 folks and rarely pick up any latecomers at that point.

  OTWO makes a good point regarding starting to publish the number of attendees and use that as their official "membership" count. That should always be higher than the number of publishers because you could count the younger kids who aren't publishers yet. It would also narrow the gap between peak and average.

  Still, why reduce the amount of info being collected? This can't just be random.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  I got it. I got it. Start by counting the WT meeting. It gets a lower number than the end of the Public Talk meeting. Switch one year to show "growth."