Through the overture, the synod had raised questions about whether the foundation was paying a strong enough rate of return, or whether the council could do better on the open market. It also asked that the assembly give the council the same ability to invest outside the foundation that other General Assembly entities are allowed.
The synod voted June 2 to affirm a decision by synod moderator Conrad Rocha and Jan DeVries, the synod’s stated clerk, to withdraw the overture from consideration by the assembly.
In a news release, the foundation said its leadership was “pleased with the synod’s decision” and said that decision will allow the foundation “to continue to balance its dedication to growing the financial resources of the church over the long term with the growing needs of the denomination to address ever-increasing mission and ministry needs around the world.”
DeVries, however, made it clear that the synod’s concerns persist even though the overture is being withdrawn.
In a statement sent to Linda Valentine, executive director of the General Assembly Council; to Clifton Kirkpatrick, the PC(USA)’s stated clerk; and to Robert Leech, the foundation’s chief executive officer, DeVries wrote that “we have no less concern about the issue but believe that the level of conflict which has arisen between the foundation and the GAC does not need the additional complication” that the overture presents.
The foundation and the GAC are in ongoing dispute about who should have the final say when there’s a disagreement over how funds restricted by donors should be spent. That disagreement will come up before the General Assembly in San Jose this month.
The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission already has been asked to weigh in on the matter. The foundation filed a complaint against the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) – which had advised the General Assembly to take the position that the General Assembly Council, and not the foundation, should have the final authority to decide how funds restricted for particular purposes should be spent, should the foundation and the council disagree about that.
The executive commission of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission issued a preliminary order May 26 declining to grant a stay of enforcement against the ACC and concluding that neither Leech nor the foundation had the proper standing to file the complaint.
The executive committee determined that there is no provision in the PC(USA) constitution allowing one General Assembly entity to file a complaint against another.
So (for those who can keep track of all the ingredients being thrown into the pot), the whole stew keeps simmering.
DeVries, in communicating with the synod, wrote that “the issue which we have raised by our overture has now been subsumed into these other matters.” While the synod remains concerned about the rate of return the foundation is paying on investments, “we do not believe continuing to champion this issue does anything to further the peace of the church at this time,” she wrote.
DeVries also wrote that “the issue is now clearly before both the GAC and the foundation,” where it can be “pursued in calmer venues.”
And she wrote that the synod will continue to ask that the foundation provide information on the rate of return it is has paid the GAC, and the charges it has assessed for managing those funds, going back for a period of 10 years.
