LOUISVILLE — A proposal to create a new charitable corporation — which advocates say could give Presbyterian Disaster Assistance more visibility, flexibility and accountability in responding to disasters and human suffering — ran smack into a flock of questions and was put off.
That appears to mean the 2006 General Assembly will not be able to take action on this and that a move to create a nonprofit disaster and relief corporation would have to be put off until the next assembly, in 2008.
The council voted to postpone action on creating the corporation until its meeting April 26-29. But that would be too late, according to Clifton Kirkpatrick, stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), to meet the 120-day advance deadline for presenting items of major business to this year’s assembly.
During their discussion Feb. 11, several members of the General Assembly Council said they support the idea of creating the corporation, but had too many questions about how it would be structured and governed to feel comfortable moving so quickly.
“This isn’t about trust. It isn’t about not wanting to change,” said Michael Kruse of Missouri. “It’s about wanting to change and to do it well.”
Kruse added: “It’s a mistake to rush ahead and create possibly more havoc.”
But others said that to wait is to mean the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) would not be as effective and compassionate as it could be in responding to the world’s great needs.
The reasons for moving slowly and carefully make a certain logical sense, said Linda Knieriemen of Michigan. But she wanted to “plead from my gut that we pass this,” because of its impact on ministry for people who are “suffering from some of the worst experiences of their lives . . . To postpone this means how many more disasters will we not be able to respond to in as deep a way” as otherwise the church perhaps could.
After the vote, Susan Ryan, who directs Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, said in an interview that she was disappointed.
Ryan had argued that creating a separate charitable corporation would mean that employers could match donations that donors made to Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, that the media would be more likely to include it on lists of where people could give charitable donations, and that it would give the PC(USA) more flexibility in doing work in countries which limit the roles that religious groups can play in doing charitable work.
The proposal was to create a nonprofit corporation that would house Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, the Presbyterian Hunger Program and the Jinishian Memorial Program, an endowed project that works with Armenians overseas.
Presbyterian Disaster Assistance — which received $40 million in donations in 2005 — is so large it requires increased scrutiny from a board that can pay careful attention, Ryan said.
When the next disaster occurs, the council’s action means “I’ll get several hundred calls again” asking why Presbyterian Disaster Assistance isn’t included on the media’s charitable giving lists, she said.
And those Presbyterians who want their employers to match their donations will give to other groups instead, Ryan said. “You move them away from the Presbyterian mission funding stream . . . Other organizations will get them in their funding databases,” not the PC(USA).
But some council members, as supportive as they are of the idea, still weren’t sure that rushing to the assembly now with the proposal is the way to go. They raised questions, for example, about how the new corporation’s board of directors would be structured and about whether a new corporation could hurt the PC(USA)’s overall mission funding efforts.
Strong opposition to moving on the proposal now came from the council’s Congregational Ministries Division committee, which raised a series of questions about the idea and formally proposed that action on forming a charitable corporation be delayed until the council’s next meeting, in April.
“If it’s a good idea now, it’s a good idea in April and it’s a good idea two years from now,” said council member John Bolt from West Virginia. “What’s the rush?”
Rick Ufford-Chase, moderator of the 216th General Assembly, said he was concerned about not having enough time to think the matter through and consider all its implications — particularly the relationship the new corporation would have to the broader church.
“I’m very nervous about arriving at a point in our future” where a separate corporation existed “that we then go to war with over who knows what,” Ufford-Chase said.
It’s important, Kirkpatrick told the council, to make the corporation’s board accountable to the governing body, with the same trustees to the extent possible, because “we have divisions and conflicts out the wazoo” in the history of the church.
Some council members proposed ideas for how to structure things — but eventually the group decided that they had too many questions and unresolved concerns, and not enough time, so they voted to postpone action until April.
In an interview, Kirkpatrick said that technically, there might be a mechanism to still present the matter to the assembly this year, such as through an overture or commissioners resolution. But he said the rules have been established so that “major items of import to the church” can be viewed and considered in advance of the assembly — and on that point “the constitution is clear.”
While there is some discretion granted to accept late business, setting up a new corporation would be considered a major item of business, Kirkpatrick said. And he said he’d have to advise “that’s not a responsible thing” to circumvent the usual rules.
