I'm working hard on analyzing the PB's budget proposal. There will be more later, but here are some initial thoughts before I run off to an Arizona deputation meeting!
> It's irregular for the PB to come out with a budget proposal that competes with Executive Council's proposal. Nevertheless, I am not interested in irregularities, power struggles, or who is allowed to do what. As Scott Gunn points out, any church member in Alabama could come up with an alternative budget proposal. I've thought about doing it myself. What I'm interested in is the substance. Is there some substance here we can get behind?
> The PB's budget proposal does what I have been advocating, and calculates the budget according to Marks of Mission categories rather than the tired old categories of Canonical, Corporate, and Program (yawn). I am glad to see mission categories become a priority.
>The chart released with the budget proposal shows that, compared to Executive Council's budget, "mission" has been increased from 59% to 67% of the total budget. First question: Do these percentages reflect actual differences in the way we are spending our money, or do they reflect reclassifying things from one category to another? Initial review shows there's a little of both going on here.
> Nevertheless, there are some terrific new proposals here. Just one example: $2 million in grant funding for new church planting. Friends, we have been needing to do this for years.
> Apparently the PB's staff has been pounding the pavement, burning up the telephone wires in calls to dioceses to wring some additional "asking" commitments from them. Income has thus been increased by $2 million. Let's hope this is real money. But 815 is in a good position to count up actual commitments - a much better position than I am.
> This budget proposes to reduce staff costs at 815 by eliminating 12.75 positions (partly including unfilled positions) and limiting cost of living increases. Great news - and again, 815 is in a much better position to offer these cuts than I am, or than Executive Council is - they know what the staff does and what is necessary.
> This budget restores Christian Formation as a priority of the church - Hurray!
I will offer more thoughts when I have more time to analyze - but here's what I'm thinking right now. If we are a dysfunctional church, we will let this proposal get bogged down in questions of who is allowed to do what, miring ourselves in canonical analysis and power struggles. If we are a church that is focused on change and mission in the 21st century, we will analyze this proposal on its merits, as members of the same team, as co-workers in the fields of the Lord of the harvest. Let's work together on this.
This is a better proposal that the "official" offering of the EC. It's not great and it might be "too little, too late" - that $2 million for new congregations, for example - $2 million to plant 20 congregations? That's not much per congregation! Maybe it would do 10, but 10's better than none.
ReplyDeleteI'm grateful to Susan and to Tom Ferguson for the analyses of these proposals. I'm a bystander in all this (not being a deputy), and I have neither the time nor inclination to go through the budget ideas with a fine-toothed comb. It's good to know that people I trust are doing so.
And then, of course, there are my suspicions.... I've said this elsewhere (on my Facebook page as Susan knows), but I'm going to go out on a limb and evidence my own institutional paranoia here ... Was this the plan all along? That the EC would release a budget so hopelessly flawed that no one could support it, and then +Katharine would ride in like a shining princess on a white stallion with a counter-proposal, still a flawed proposal but one so much better than the EC's version that people would leap at it? Is the church and the General Convention being manipulated? I have absolutely no evidence to suggest this, but my cynical, paranoid little mind is whispering these sorts of suspicions to me.
Hi Eric, I personally doubt that Executive Council or PHoD Anderson would lend themselves to the scheme you suggest. My general rule is: assume good intentions and faithful service by all involved. So I am going to assume we're all doing the best we can.
Delete@Eric: I don't think TEC is functional enough to successfully pull off the Machiavellian manipulations you suggest. Perhaps I'm naive, but I generally go with the maxim that it it makes more sense to ascribe things to stupidity rather than malice.
ReplyDeleteBeyond that, one of the things that I'm seeing in PB Katherine's budget proposal is the idea that TEC will _partner_ with dioceses in a variety of efforts, including church planting. I can see planting 20 congregations over three years by TEC providing grants that match diocesan financial support. I can think of 1/3 of the cost of planting a church coming from TEC, 1/3 from the diocese, and 1/3 being raised from surrounding parishes and local sources. I think that collaboration makes sense.
Thank you Susan. I am on the Standing Commission for Mission and Evangelism and am happy to see that A073 is being supported with funding - establishing Mission Enterprise Zones. Our work in this triennium has been focused completely on moving into being a Mission based church not just saying that we are.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that Native Ministry still has a lot of work to do because the two major budget lines 168 (in part) 169 and 170 all include either vague descriptions of the work or inaccurate descriptions of the work we are engaged in now and going forward.
Why is it "great news" to throw people out of their jobs? Just wondering.
ReplyDeleteSorry I was unclear on this. I think that given that staff reductions will probably have to happen, it is far better to have 815 do the analysis of what positions are needed than to have General Convention take out a sledgehammer and bang away at it without good information. And 815 apparently cut a number of positions that are presently unfilled, which means that actual people wouldn't lose their jobs. The COLA increase goes from 3% to 2% in this budget, which I think is reasonable in a time of limited resources. And, this budget restores some jobs which Exec Council had cut, so on the whole I think it is good news for people's jobs.
DeleteMy Spidey-sense is tingling on this, and not in a good way. The PB and her COO were part of the "incoherent" Executive Council budget process. The staff, particularly the DFMS/GC treasurer's office, were the ones whose mathematical errors contributed mightily to that incoherence. Sounds like a political end run to me, with the eventual result of investing budgeting power in the PB's/COO's office rather than the democratically elected General Convention.
ReplyDeleteSay what you will, but I *am* interested in the "irregularities, power struggles, and who is allowed to do what." When you don't pay attention to those things, no matter how boring or "political" they may seem, you may find your Church has changed beyond recognition. YMMV.
Well, maybe it's time for General Convention to take a stand. Exec Council and 815 have both had their turn - now it's time for the church's elected representatives to do the best we can. I think Gen Convention is much better served looking at the substance of the budget questions, rather than where they came from. That doesn't mean there aren't honest critiques to be made of this proposal, as there were of Exec Council's proposal - I am sure there are, and will publish mine when I have time to look at this in detail.
Delete