Two Presbyterian leaders concerned about changes being proposed in the dues structure of the Board of Pensions medical plan have written a letter to presbytery and synod executives. The letter was sent by John Fife, moderator of the 1992 General Assembly, and by Deborah Fortel, who led an Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy team which wrote a report approved by the 2010 General Assembly called “Neither Poverty Nor Riches: Compensation, Equity and the Unity of the Church.”
Fortel and Fife raise concerns about the proposed changes, characterizing them as “counter to the values of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.),” and have asked mid council executives to share the letter with pastoral leaders and clerks of session.
Here is the text of the Jan. 4 letter:
January 4, 2013
Dear Presbytery Staff Members,
Grace and peace to you all.
We write with concern about proposed benefits and dues plan changes announced by the Board of Pensions after their October 2012 meeting, and to urge reconsideration. We ask that you share this letter with the pastoral leaders and clerks of session of your Presbytery, to encourage congregational conversations toward the hope that more faithful and constructive options might be explored as all of us consider how to respond to the funding crisis for the health care benefits of the Plan.
The reasons for our concern begin with our sense that the proposed changes are counter to the values of the Presbyterian Church (USA), including those of the Board of Pensions. Among our concerns are the following:
-
No suggestion was made in written reports by the Board of Pensions to the 220th General Assembly (2012) that a significant change in the structure of medical benefits was contemplated, nor was any suggestion offered that perhaps the plan was facing a deficit situation. A deficit of the level the Board has announced seems unlikely to have emerged between July and October 2012. Although there was a small hint of a change in the financial outlook for the medical plan in the report to the 2012 General Assembly, the concern was not clearly stated.
-
The proposed turn away from the historic communal nature and the call neutrality aspects of the plan are troubling. These two aspects have been central in the Board’s reports and interpretive pieces, which does not surprise, as both are highly valued by Plan members and congregations. Indeed, the communal nature of the Plan was emphasized in the Board’s Agency Summary to the 220th General Assembly. These aspects are understood and lived as spiritual values by Presbyterians across the church. Changing the essential nature of the Plan would damage the church and render faithful ministry more difficult in many places.
-
Further, the proposed changes may well exacerbate existing divisions in the church. Increasing costs for Plan members with dependents puts Plan members on opposing sides. It places members with dependents, a group that includes many of the younger members of the Plan, out of parity with members without dependents, a group that includes the majority of older and/or retired members. It also could result in increasing division between Plan members who serve smaller, less-resourced congregations and those who serve larger, wealthier congregations. In many cases, members who are financially better off will get a break, while members who are already experiencing financial stress will be under increased burdens if the proposed changes are enacted.
Finally, the Board’s report to the 220th General Assembly on Amendments to the Plan notes that amendments “that are in the nature of a benefit reduction…are only effective upon approval of the General Assembly”. We suggest that a benefit reduction is part of the proposed change, and thus, we believe that the Board must submit these proposed changes to the 221st General Assembly (2014), which would allow the church time for a full conversation about the potential benefits and costs of the proposed changed to the medical benefits of the Plan.
We urge the Board of Directors to reconsider these changes and offer the church the opportunity to consider all the implications of the proposed changes at the 221st General Assembly.
John Fife, Moderator
204th General Assembly, PC(USA) (1992)
Deborah Fortel, Moderator
204th General Assembly, PC(USA) (1992) GA Task Force on Theology of Compensation, 2008-2010
NOTE: The Presbyterian News Service press release on proposed changes is one place to find more information.
