Special committee’s draft report on financial sustainability nearly ready for a vote

Committee will consider a draft report on the future of per capita funding next month

by Mike Ferguson | Presbyterian News Service

LOUISVILLE — One half of the draft report being written by the Special Committee on Per-Capita Based Funding & National Church Financial Sustainability will be put to the vote this week, with the report’s second half, on the future of per capita funding, expected next month.

The combined committees, which have been meeting together since the committee’s formation, met via a videoconference call Monday to discuss the financial sustainability portion of the report, still in draft form.

Both reports will go before the 224^th General Assembly in June 2020 for discussion and vote.

The financial sustainability portion of the special committee has been meeting with agency heads and others ahead of preparing its report.

“The real issue to sustainability is far greater than revenue,” the draft report states. “It is an operational issue that affects allocations and functionality outside the purview of this committee. When diving deep into the sustainability issue, the committee has identified operational, structural and cultural changes that must be made in order to maximize the funds obtained.”

“There is confusion how dollars are spent,” the draft report states. “While the committee is unable to determine the level of duplication of efforts, because there is no single body providing oversight for mission priorities between General Assemblies, there is the risk of duplication of efforts.”

“Even if there is no duplication,” the draft report continues, “the multiple mission priorities by different agencies that are indistinguishable to the average member of the PC(USA) may contribute to the confusion.”

Committee members studying financial sustainability say the General Assembly should consider a revision of the Organization for Mission, the manual of administrative operations for the General Assembly. They also advise “determining a structural solution to the lack of a single entity determining allocations between the Office of the General Assembly and the Presbyterian Mission Agency between General Assemblies.”

The OGA relies on per capita for most of its funding. The agency could engage in fundraising, the draft report states, “but it is felt by OGA that this may impact future per capita payments and requested increases. This sets OGA at a disadvantage and puts it at risk of being unable to fulfill its mission in the long-term.”

While agencies collaborate regularly, “there is no systemic instrument in place to ensure coordination and cooperation between agencies, particularly PMA and OGA, and between Assemblies,” the draft report states. “If OGA does not get another way to access needed revenue beyond raising per capita, the pressure on mid councils will increase, which is a primary source of stress according to the committee’s research/data gathering.”

“Seeing OGA and PMA as part of ‘One Church’ instead of two competing agencies,” the document states, “would help address questions of improving fiscal management and sustainability from a cultural and structural standpoint.”

A broader issue, the draft report states, is communication — specifically, communicating to mid councils and church members how funds from mission giving and per capita support are used. That, the document suggests, “would be vital to shifting culture and educating the church.”

Draft recommendations are laid out in two categories — structure and interpretation.

Among the structural recommendations:

• Exploring the formation of “a cohesive ecclesial missional body” and asking agencies to consider how their “disparate mission and work are aligned in service to the PC(USA) and its ministry in the world.”
• Forming a task force to revise the Organization for Mission for presentation to the 225^th General Assembly in 2022.
• Considering the combining, merging or consolidating of the efforts and funding needs between OGA and PMA

The interpretation recommendations include:

• Creating a campaign for all agencies, mid council leaders and ruling elders to explain the “why” of making one’s church the giving priority. That campaign should be simple, theological, compelling, repeatable and scalable, the draft report says.
• Providing financial and human resources for a two-year campaign to explain what per capita funds support.
• Developing and providing training materials for all General Assembly commissioners on what per capita is and what it supports.
• Integrating training on per capita for all new worshiping communities in the expectation that they will one day participate.