The Moving Forward Implementation Commission is moving closer to determining what it will recommend to the 2020 General Assembly – pruning and refining the language of series of proposed recommendations, although it hasn’t taken any formal votes yet.
This is kind of a complicated dance, as the commission is signaling the direction in which it intends to go – while still having conversations with top leaders in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) about some of these issues. For example, both the Presbyterian Mission Agency Board and the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly are meeting in Baltimore Feb. 12-14 – and Marco Grimaldo, the commission’s co-moderator, will make a presentation at that meeting.
During a two-hour conference call Feb. 4, some commission members said they expect pushback to some of their proposals – including the idea of moving the Mission Engagement and Support department from the Presbyterian Mission Agency (PMA) to the Administrative Services Group in the PC(USA), A Corporation.
Mission Engagement and Support, led by Rosemary Mitchell, is responsible for trying to increase mission giving for the PC(USA). But there’s no fundraising in place for the Office of the General Assembly (OGA) – and so the commission is considering recommending that Mission Engagement and Support also be given responsibility (and maybe some additional staff or funding) for doing funds development, interpretation and education for per capita and the Presbyterian Historical Society as well.
Some questions related to that: Would PMA still be responsible for funding all that work, using unrestricted funds? Would OGA – which is experiencing budget stress – be expected to help pay those costs (maybe 20%, using an administrative cost-sharing formula currently in place – which could amount to about $600,000 in additional costs for OGA)? And if it shares the cost, would OGA share in unrestricted revenues as well – or only possibly new unrestricted bequests?
Grimaldo plans to have a conversation soon about this with Diane Moffett, PMA’s president and executive director, and with Kathy Lueckert, president of the A Corporation, and to also consult with PC(USA) stated clerk J. Herbert Nelson.
OGA has a deep interest in fundraising, “but no money to do this,” said commission member Mathew Eardley.
And “everything gets a little hazy when we start talking about a unified budget,” Eardley said. “Theoretically when we’re talking about a unified budget, none of this matters.”
Another question still to be determined is how much difference there will be – or confluence – between the commission’s recommendations and those of the Special Committee on Per Capita Based Funding and National Church Financial Sustainability. The per capita and financial sustainability committee is continuing its work by conference call as well – also, like the commission, racing towards a Feb. 21 deadline for submitting its recommendations to the 2020 General Assembly.
During an in-person meeting in Louisville in late January, commission members raised reservations about some of the special committee’s draft recommendations of the special committee – and seemed to be learning towards asking the assembly to give two years for a proposed staff “table for ongoing ministry collaboration” to get established and start work. The special committee seems to be leaning towards asking the assembly to consider a structural change – initiating a process for a possible merger of OGA and PMA.
There are other potentially sore spots as well. The commission may suggest revisions in relevant documents to change the name of the Presbyterian Mission Agency Board to the “Committee on the Presbyterian Mission Agency” (paralleling the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly).
Another change would revise the title of the PMA executive from “president/executive director” to “executive director.” And that proposed recommendation also would formally eliminate the Property/Legal Committee of the PMA board.
A draft rationale for the proposed recommendation describes these as “housekeeping items” following the decision of the 2018 General Assembly to separate corporate functions from the PMA board and lodge them with a reconfigured A Corporation board.
But commission member Eric Beene predicted “there will be lots of kickback on this” from the PMA board, even though some General Assembly commissioners might view all this as “semantics.”
Commission member Debra Avery responded that “it’s more than semantics. It’s actually real. … This is still part of breaking down the old thing. It isn’t done yet.”
Board member James Tse has said repeatedly that this isn’t a hill he wants to die on – “the authority has already been removed from them at the last assembly,” so “it’s not a heck of a lot of difference” what the name is.
So the behind-the-scenes negotiations and conference calls continue. And before too long, there will be votes – decisions, finally, after months of work.
