Funding formula status quo until 2009
by Ana Watts
A new model to calculate parishes fair share of the diocesan budget will not be put in place until the 2009 synod. Two models proposed at the 2007 synod in June were sent for more study with recommendations coming to the next regularly scheduled synod. Until then, the formula established in 1991, that divides diocesan support into mandatory assessment and requested mission apportionment, remains in effect.
Bishop Claude Miller called for the motion to refer following protracted debate, two amendments and overnight deliberation.
In the fall of 2006, with the urging of several parishes, the diocesan finance committee recommended Diocesan Council strike a task force to develop a new process to determine each parish’s fair share of the diocesan-shared ministry. It presented its report and recommendations to council in March of this year.
A notice of motion was published in the synod journal and discussed at archdeaconry Greater Chapter meetings held throughout the diocese in preparation for synod.
The notice of motion as published and discussed called for a donation of $65 for every identifiable giver and a 12 per cent portion of the parish’s operating income as the bases for the entire parish share.
Feedback from the Greater Chapter meetings caused the task force to amend its formula to request $52 per identifiable giver. The 12 per cent of operating income remained the same. A motion incorporating those figures and implementation over three years replaced the notice of motion in the journal and was brought to the floor of synod on Friday, June 8. It was moved by task force members Gerald McConaghy (Parish of Rothesay) and Lawrence Carpenter (Parish of Richmond).
The Rev. Chris VanBuskirk (Parish of Moncton) moved an amendment
to the motion. It was seconded by Jacqueline Straight (Parish of Cambridge and Waterborough). They suggested that 13.6 per cent of parish income in 2008 and 12.2 per cent of parish income in 2009 be collected, and the amount for each identifiable giver be eliminated. Projected figures for this model showed the 2011 fair share contribution for each parish as 9.9 per cent, or virtually 10 per cent of the parish income.
“What Chris has proposed is a biblical model recognized throughout the church,” said the Rev. Ian Wetmore (Parish of St. Mary’s York). “It is popular in the Episcopal Church in the United States and is called the ‘10-10-10 solution.’ Our parishes are in dire straits paying 25 per cent to the diocese.”
He suggested if the stress were removed from parishioners and they were encouraged to tithe, they would see their money going to good works in the parish. With this increased giving in the parish would come increased giving to the diocese.
Mr. McConaghy noted the diocesan budget funds many programs with its $1.5 million budget and that a straight 10 per cent from parishes would drastically reduce the diocese’s ability to fund youth ministry and Christian education, among other things.
The Rev. Dr. Ranall Ingalls (Parish of Stanley), who attended a seminar to study the various forms of rural ministry, said the original motion moved struggling rural parishes toward rationalization and consolidation. It only considers parishes viable if they can pay insurance premiums and their diocesan obligations.
“In the early 1990s, between 10 and 15 per cent of the diocesan budget went toward sustaining 18 parishes,” said Dr, Ingalls. “Now that amount is spent on diocesan programs. This amendment gives us an opportunity to move in a new direction.”
A lengthy debate ensued. Proponents of the original motion asked which diocesan staff would be fired first if the amended formula were used. Past synods were recalled that identified ministry priorities for the diocese, including greater support for youth work, and noted those programs are now in place. Some priests said their parishes were all the stronger for diocesan initiatives and support from synod staff.
Proponents of the amendment complained that too much money is spent on diocesan administration and not enough was spent on the support of struggling parishes. They maintained the mission of the church takes place in parishes and reiterated the 10 per cent solution, with individuals tithing to the church, the church tithing to the diocese, and the diocese tithing to the National Church. They said eventually incomes would increase at every level .
Several synod delegates said the amendment had come out of left field and they didn’t feel prepared to vote on it until they had more information.
Debate of the issue continued for about an hour. Canon Fred Scott, diocesan treasurer, said a recent synod office visioning exercise confirmed that everything staff does –– from administration of the health plan to support for Christian education –– is in support of parish ministry.
Mr. VanBuskirk closed he debate. “There will be cuts (to diocesan staff) no matter which way we go,” he said. “We view the $52 connection as a tax, and according to our calculations our health plan will not be in jeopardy (with the amendment). Our model has been going in South Carolina for 13 years and it has blossomed.”
The amendment was carried and the amended motion put to synod. There were several suggestions to refer that motion to Diocesan Council but Mr. VanBuskirk objected.
“If we refer this to Diocesan Council then what is synod really for?” he asked. “We are the people who need to decide this. Let’s deal with it today. We’ve done a lot of work on it already.”
A motion to refer was defeated, and again the amended motion came before the house.
Canon Scott moved to have the motion tabled until the following day in order to crunch numbers using the amended model and create a context for the synod. His motion was seconded by the Rev. Howard Anningson (Parish of Carleton) and carried.
When the amended motion came before the house the following afternoon, Bishop Miller spoke on a point of order. He said he appreciated the work of the diocesan task force who brought forward the original motion, and was equally impressed with the amendments. He was, however, uncomfortable with both. “I am not able to support either the original or revised motion. We are convened as a body to govern, but the Bishop is to lead.”
Canon Charles Ferris, diocesan chancellor, moved to refer the motion to Diocesan Council and stipulated that the mover and seconder of the amendment be invited to participate in the review process. His motion was seconded by the Rev. Paul Donison (Parish of McAdam).
Mr. VanBuskirk suggested he had planned to refer the motion to Diocesan Synod. “I think it needs to be dealt with here.”
Mrs. Straight, who seconded the amendment, also wanted it to be brought back to synod for a vote. “I don’t want it just to be reported on,” she said.
In consideration of all the factors, a final motion was crafted:
“Refer this motion to Diocesan Council with the mover and seconder of the amended motion being involved with the process, and the recommendations arising therefrom coming before the next synod for voting.”
The motion passed with a few dissenting votes.
Read the full text of the bishop's charge.
Diocesan Communications
12 June 2007
