So, as key staff people who had been and were stellar performers at the foundation either left in frustration or were ousted (and silenced) because they wouldn’t sit still for the flawed judgment that was taking the organization in a wrong direction, I said nothing.
And though dumbfounded to learn that the organization was seeking General Assembly approval to reduce the size and representativeness of the board — which I never found too large and often wished for even more resources than we had — I said nothing.
As a donor to the church through the foundation, a member of the Boudinot Covenant Society, and a financial contributor to the foundation itself, I was increasingly disappointed in the direction and results of the organization as communicated in its publications. But I’d made a commitment, so I said nothing.
But after reading Jennifer Files’ recent article on the foundation, and her interview with its current president, Robert E. Leech, I can’t be still anymore. With the expectation that little is likely to come of this communication, there is still, somehow, an obligation to speak up for the thousands of persons who understood why the foundation exists and whose efforts and legacy are being eroded by people who, amazingly, just don’t seem to get it.
The temptation to respond, point by point, to the plethora of bizarre comments made by Leech in The Outlook article is hard to resist, but that would be seen by some as cruel and the perceived personal criticism would detract from the central issues. It is just as difficult not to offer detailed reactions to some of the decisions made by the foundation board. But we’d get so mired in details that require specialized knowledge to appreciate, that even those who wanted to understand the issues likely couldn’t separate the wheat from the chaff. So, I will limit myself to two observations and two suggestions.
Observation One
The foundation cannot justify its existence solely as the church’s fiduciary. It cannot compete on a pure economic basis with today’s financial giants. They have resources and capabilities that the foundation will never have. One needs only look at the foundation’s investment performance over the last four years and its cost structure compared to the Vanguard funds if concrete proof is required.
Make no mistake; I worked hard for the creation of New Covenant Trust Company and New Covenant Funds. But, as the General Assembly was assured at the time, those corporate devices were nothing more than ways to make absolutely certain that the foundation would always be able to fulfill its true mission of Serving the Church in All Its Work. Sadly, that phrase, which defined the foundation for years, as well as the spirit and humility it emerges from, has disappeared from the organization. Had I even suspected that this is where the blood, sweat, and tears that went into recreating the foundation in the mid-1990s would lead, I’d have scuttled the plan myself.
There are only two unique factors that justify the existence of the foundation. One is its ability to ensure that funds given for defined uses are spent in strict compliance with donor instructions. The other is the selflessness that allows the organization to deserve the trust of Presbyterians, governing bodies, and related organizations. That trust made the foundation one of the most prolific and respected funds development organizations in the country. It is a trust that was built over decades and is being destroyed in an instant.
Sisters and brothers at the foundation, the “big churches with the big budgets” won’t buy what you are selling. They shouldn’t. They can get better economic value elsewhere. Your only reason for being is to serve — every Presbyterian! The longer you exhibit the arrogance and poor judgment that communicates that it is your prowess, rather than your servanthood to the church, that legitimizes your existence, the more damage you will do and the longer it will take to overcome it.
Observation Two
Leech was quoted as saying, “The affected people say we’ve caused damage to the partnership, but the partnership was, ‘We paid for everything.’” That assertion is arrogant, offensive, and patently wrong! It is the fees collected from the churches’ money that pays for everything. The foundation seems to have lost sight of that. For 200 years, the foundation’s stewardship of the churches’ money brought in more than enough to cover costs. Maybe there’s another problem?
Suggestion One
If the foundation trustees really believe what they are doing is right for the church, I urge them to consider this alternate strategy:
1. Transfer the foundation assets to the Board of Pensions for management.
2. Sell the trust company shell and give the proceeds to mission.
3. Hire a compliance auditor to ensure donor instructions are followed and assign that person to the Office of the General Assembly
4. Close down the rest of the organization. It has no reason to exist other than to do things that are done more efficiently by secular organizations.
This is, unquestionably, a better economic model than the one you are pursuing.
Suggestion Two
Better yet, fall to your knees and ask God to help you rediscover what Serving the Church in All its Work meant for so long … what it accomplished for so many … and the promise it still holds for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) if you can only live it faithfully, enthusiastically and humbly.
Larry D. Carr of Boston was president and CEO of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Foundation from 1993 to 1999. He is currently a member of the board of the Presbyterian Outlook Foundation which publishes this magazine.
Send your comment to The Outlook. Please give your hometown.
