By Rev. Kathy Neary, Pastor of Orchards United Methodist Church in Vancouver, WA.
Reposted by request from Kathy’s Blog, Future Faith.
The Pacific Northwest Conference of the United Methodist Church has a very bright future. We are called to be in ministry with our neighbors to build the kingdom of God, and we have a plan. We are called to relieve suffering in the world, to help people connect with God and Christ, and to create justice. And we have a plan. We envision our future taking shape in new faith communities and in revitalized existing congregations and local ministries. We have begun a $3 million campaign to raise money for these endeavors. It’s a good plan. I am excited about our future.
However, if I were an investor who was asked to contribute to our capital campaign, one of my first questions would be “What is the financial viability of the Conference right now and in the immediate future?” Currently we don’t have a rosy picture for our financial situation. There are three indicators that our present situation is unsustainable. First, while the Annual Conference has been getting smaller in terms of membership and average worship attendance, our budget has continued to increase. Second, to pay for our Annual Conference budget, we must apportion it to the local churches at rates of 25 to 28% of total salaries and programming costs in the local church. Third, to “balance” our conference budget we write in fudge factors to make up for the amount we will fall short every year. These fudge factors are named the “conference benevolence support fund” and the “ministerial support fund.” These funds are then added to the overall budget, which in turn increases the amount that every church is apportioned.
In order to move into the future we have to deal with our current reality. We need tobecome financially viable and stable for the near future. I am suggesting that we move toward a conference budget that can be supported by apportioning the budget to the local churches at a 10% level. In other words, local churches would pay 10% of the amount they pay for salaries and programming to the Annual Conference. I also propose that we do this by cutting our Annual Conference budget by 10% each year for four years.
I have proposed two resolutions that would move us toward this goal. The first is to cap the district superintendent’s total compensation package at $100,000, a reduction from the current $139,000 (Petition 5-14). The second is to maintain the Office of Connectional Ministries budget at its current level of $834,486, even though the OCM is taking on the cost of two more positions (Petition 5-15). These two petitions, if passed, along with the reductions already part of the recommended 2014 budget, would result in a decrease of 10% in our conference budget compared to the 2013 budget.
Our future is bright. However, not only must we plan for the future we want, we must also deal with our current reality so that we can move with confidence and strength into that future.
Kathy, I applaud your proposals and the thought that went into them. However, it may be too much to digest too quickly. We need to think outside the box and your proposal does that but my input would be that we form a committee(which is the UM way) to seriously look at these issues and report to next years Annual Conference.
This proposal appears logical and prudent, and if the PNW Conference is truly open, Rev. Neary’s ideas should receive widespread discussion and debate. But that’s a big “IF.” Institutional structures tend not only to perpetuate themselves, but to get bigger and bigger, even when their programs and services get smaller. My Annual Conference’s membership and number of clergy has, like most, declined markedly over the years, but the Conference Staff continues to expand.
There was a time when the Conference Treasurer and two assistants handled not only all the fiscal and accounting responsibilities of a much larger clergy and church population, but also all the details of the pension and medical insurance programs (prior to the 1982 Pension Plan). When detailed information about any part of church finances was needed, this staff of three could manually produce the data very quickly, answering even the most sophisticated questions.
Now the Conference Treasurer’s Office comprises a staff more than doubled the size of the former one (which processed information “manually”) and includes IT personnel and one room containing a “server,” and when particular information is requested, the “system” produces data that either is indecipherable or does not really address the issue being raised. Perhaps, however, such circuitousness is intentional.
My impression is that over the years debate at Annual Conference sessions has drastically declined, that the various commissions and committees responsible for oversight and regulation of Conference fiscal policy and procedures are unaware of what they have done or what they have proposed (I know this from conversations with said members of such groups), and that power has been concentrated in fewer and fewer persons. Time for conducting business at Annual Conferences has been drastically reduced as more and more time has been given over to a happy-times party atmosphere.
But then maybe things are different in PNW, and maybe I’m just an old grump.
Hi Rick,
I appreciate your comments. You are right: Methodists are known for studying problems to death! I think now is the time to start acting, and my proposals would get us moving right now toward a more stable future. They would also give the CF and A a good model to work with for the next few years. (Yes I do have suggestions for the next three years too!)