Advertisement
Holy Week resources and reflections

Commission members raise questions about possible per capita and restructuring recommendations

LOUISVILLE – Members of the Moving Forward Implementation Commission voiced reservations Jan. 23 about many of the preliminary recommendations from the Special Committee on Per-Capita Based Funding and National Church Financial Sustainability – among them, a proposal for restructuring the top levels of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the idea of proposing experiments for possible alternatives to the per capita funding system.

The commission took no formal votes on the first day of its Jan. 23-24 meeting in Louisville – but the level of skepticism regarding the draft proposals from the special committee was clear, as members raised questions about everything from the cost of the proposals to their effectiveness.

Commission members prayed for the church and the world during opening worship. (All photos by Leslie Scanlon).

“I’m OK with change if there was a good model that made a lot of sense that was clear and easily communicated,” said Mathew Eardley, a commission member from Idaho. But he questioned whether the idea of proposing experiments for alternatives to per capita might hurt denominational giving overall, and pushed back on the idea that the per capita system actually is “broken,” as some members of the special committee contend. At the national level, Eardley said, “it’s pretty successful.”

Marco Grimaldo, who serves as co-moderator of the commission, along with Larryetta Ellis, urged the commission to “be careful about what we put before the General Assembly” regarding a possible new funding model.

Larryetta Ellis and Marco Grimaldo serve as co-moderators of the Moving Forward Implementation Commission.

And he said a proposal to create a unified budget structure for the top levels of the PC(USA) is already somewhat in the works – emerging holistically out of conversations the commission has helped convene.

Grimaldo said what’s already underway is more like a marriage than a structural merger – and said perhaps a better idea would be to give the leaders of the Presbyterian Mission Agency (PMA) and the Office of the General Assembly (OGA) time over the next two years to develop a unified budget and see what other progress they might make working collaboratively.

The commission is wrestling with these questions in part because it’s trying to determine which if any of the special committee’s recommendations it might be able to endorse or offer comment on. One possibility would be to say nothing – to let the special committee’s recommendations stand or fall on their own. Another is to provide feedback to the committee’s leadership, and encourage changes in what’s being proposed before the final recommendations are due Feb. 21.

“We need to give this committee some support, so the whole report doesn’t go down in flames,” said commission member Eric Beene of Georgia.

The per capita and financial sustainability committee met in Louisville Jan. 13-15, coming up with draft recommendations that include denominational restructuring and the idea of creating some new funding experiments. Also under discussion: the importance of finding ways to explain to congregations why it’s important to help fund the national church and how the money gets spent, and to respond to concerns from mid council leaders that the current funding system is no longer effective.

The special committee’s per capita team spent months in 2019 talking to more than 200 presbytery and synod leaders, reporting back deep concerns about presbyteries feeling squeezed between the financial needs of congregations and the national church.

Commission members, however, had a lot of questions.

Jackie Cummings, the treasurer of the Presbytery of South Louisiana, said she’d have a hard time explaining some of these proposals to the churches in her region. The congregations there are so varied – ranging from educated and prosperous to a tiny church of 15 where most “barely graduated high school” – that no one campaign to explain per capita would be effective, Cummings said.

Jackie Cummings

“I’m imagining yet more mailings coming from General Assembly that we recycle,” Beene said.

What seems to be more effective, Cummings said, are personal visits from presbytery leaders to explain the funding needs of a connectional church.

Regarding a proposal that the General Assembly create a commission to unify OGA and PMA into one entity, commission member Debra Avery of California said she’s not necessarily against the concept, but “I want way, way, way, way, way more details, and a specific description of how it looks.”

The special commission isn’t saying study merger – it’s saying “Do it,” said commission member Cliff Lyda of Florida.

“Which will become ‘Study it,’ ” when it gets to the assembly, Avery responded.

Commission members did not all agree on the question of how well per capita is working,

“We need to recognize it’s a broken model,” said James Tse of New York.

“It’s not broken. It’s working just fine – but not for this century,” Avery said.

Because per capita giving is based on membership, it’s a funding model for a growing denomination – and the PC(USA) has been losing members for more than 50 years, Tse said. “Until we solve the problem of a declining Presbyterian church, this is not the right model,” he said. “This was designed for the 1950s.”

During a conference call Jan. 22, members of the per capita and financial sustainability committee recognized it may be difficult to convince Presbyterians to support some of their recommendations – particularly if Moving Forward does not go along. The committee needs to provide more data that combining OGA and PMA would give relief to presbyteries or result in greater giving, said committee member Diane Kenning of Colorado. If not, “why would we do it?” she asked.

“The idea of merging the two entities is long overdue,” said Scott Lumsden, a committee member from Seattle. “Even if we don’t say it right and have the perfect recommendation, I do think it’s a conversation the General Assembly has to have and commissioners need to wrestle with. … I want to err on the side of courageousness,” and if the assembly won’t support it, “that’s fine, it’s happened before, we’ll survive.”

Unified budget.  Despite the objections Moving Forward members raised about the details of possible recommendations from the special committee, there are some common threads in what they’ve been discussing – particularly the need for a unified budget in which top church leaders agree on how funds available for the national church will be spent.

 At a closed-door budget summit convened last November on the instructions of the commission, the leaders of three PC(USA) entities – PMA, OGA and the Administrative Services Group, which is part of the PC(USA), A Corporation  – agreed they will present a unified budget for 2021-2022 to the General Assembly when it meets in Baltimore in June.

PC(USA) stated clerk J. Herbert Nelson greeted commission member Jackie Cummings.

That’s important in part because it means the agency heads are looking for ways to solve the financial squeeze that OGA is facing – perhaps by shifting available funds, in an effort to reduce the size of the per capita increase OGA might be asking the assembly to approve. Per capita is the per-member assessment (currently $8.95 per member for the General Assembly per capita) set to help support the work of the national church.

Grimaldo said the budget summit was important because it brought the agency leaders together in one place – with a commitment in advance from their governing boards that they could act. “They came into the room ready,” Grimaldo said. “They came with a proposal. That was important. It meant a level of collaboration we haven’t often seen.”

 Details of what was agreed to in the summit have been scarce. But Grimaldo said the understanding is that PMA will dip into its reserves to meet administrative expenses over the next two years, rather than drawing on $1.4 million from per capita. That leaves more money left to cover OGA’s costs – and consequently a lessening of the per capita increase that OGA might request.

There also are procedural questions to be resolved – for example, does a “unified budget” mean the assembly will consider one budget, with one vote? And what might the commission recommend the assembly do to extend this process into future years, beyond the 2022 budget – to move a unified budget from a one-time collaboration into something cooperative that’s built into the system?

In another meeting Jan. 23, Barry Creech, director of policy, administration and board support for PMA, told the coordinating committee of the Presbyterian Mission Agency Board that a change in the scheduled is being considered as well. Typically, the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly (COGA) presents the proposed per capita rate for the next two years – including any increases in the rate – in February before the General Assembly meets.

This year, the per capita request won’t come until COGA’s meeting in April, Creech said – because the Presbyterian Mission Agency Board won’t be ready with its budget until then, and to take those actions separately doesn’t make sense if the budget is supposed to be unified.

Diane Moffett, PMA’s president and executive director, met with the commission Jan. 23 to discuss some ideas the commission has on the table. Presenting a unified budget will be good for the church, she said, as “commissioners will benefit from seeing the whole picture. … I don’t know if we’d ever have done that without Moving Forward.”

Moffett raised concerns about the idea of merging OGA and PMA, saying “I don’t know if that would be helpful,” and that she has encouraged her staff to “stay focused” and not to become anxious about changes under consideration.

Diane Moffett, president and executive director of the Presbyterian Mission Agency, praised the commission for leading denominational leaders towards new levels of collaboration.

“I am not at all satisfied with spiritual mediocrity and constant decline,” Moffett said. And over the years, she’s seen “too much polarization and too much competition and too much grabbing for power and money” in church life. “I’m not getting on that train.”

Moffett suggested that collaboration is good, but the practices may need to be “codified” or formalized – to say “if we value collaboration, this is what it looks like, this is how it happens,” to make sure it continues to happen in years to come.

The PC(USA) needs to grow, spiritually and numerically, Moffett said. “We’re going to need to grow to make the kind of impact we want to make for Christ. … I think you all are doing some important work. I’m grateful for it.”

The commission’s meeting continues Jan. 24 – with a list of the recommendations it intends to make to the assembly likely to emerge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

LATEST STORIES

Advertisement