Assembly Committee #9: Mission Coordination

This is kind of a homecoming for me; this was the committee I served during the 218th General Assembly (2008). It also is a hodge-podge kind of committee. There are all sorts of things thrown in here.

Perhaps the most important thing they will be asked is to recommend confirmation of the re-election of Linda Valentine as Executive Director.

The second, and perhaps most evident issue: money. And money is tight.

From Item 09-21, “The General Assembly Mission Council recommends that the 219th General Assembly (2010) approve the 2011 General Assembly Mission Budget and Program in the total amount of $82,097,234 and the 2012 General Assembly Mission Budget and Program in the total amount of $80,550,613.” Compare that with this: “The General Assembly Council recommends that the 218th General Assembly (2008) approve the 2009 General Assembly Mission Budget and Program in the total amount of $110,311,281 and the 2010 General Assembly Mission Budget and Program in the total amount of $107,623,073.” Now, in fairness, this included a fairly substantial amount of spend-down of the reserve accounts that had been accumulating; a situation that took a drastic downward turn in October, 2008. However, a more straight-forward comparison is here: “The General Assembly Council recommends that the 217th General Assembly (2006) approve the 2007 General Assembly Mission Budget and Program in the total amount of $97,612,768 and the 2008 General Assembly Mission Budget and Program in the total amount of $96,298,454 .” From $97 million to $80 million in six years. That’s a hit.

There is not a lot of room to mess with the budget presented and approved by the GAMC. That was the surprise to me when I was on the committee. In reality, however, that makes some sense. First, I suspect my priorities would not have been the same as everyone else’s and two days would be insufficient time to work out the details. Second, if we remember that there have been major decisions regarding staffing and program made in recent months — it would throw things into chaos to have commissioners with little hands-on experience just run roughshod over the numbers.

Money — or the lack thereof — is an issue for every committee.

The decline has practical implications. It means saying, “That may or may not be a good idea; regardless, right now: no.” Prioritizing will mean painful choices and limited opportunities. Item 09-04 requests the General Assembly to “instruct the General Assembly Mission Council to continue to make missionary support among the highest priorities in the 2011 and 2012 budgets to the end that the long-awaited reversal in the numbers of mission personnel may be sustained.” Commissioners face the choices of not doing something additional or creating a situation where approved things will have to be cut between Assemblies by the GAMC.  Not doing options include things like 09-07 developing a funding strategy for PHEWA and convening an impact study to re-look at the decisions regarding GAMC budgets;  09-15, creating a new task force to review mission funding, 09-16 to enable the formation of a special study group to study the name “racial ethnic.”

In fact, any new special committee, study or study group, or task force should be considered a luxury we cannot afford. That’s not a political statement — it is a stewardship statement. We cannot approve additional expenditures when we cannot afford what has already been approved.

What’s the alternative? Item 09-08 recommends creating an Extra Commitment Opportunity (ECO) to support the work of the Lighthouse Foundation. This is neither an endorsement or criticism of that operation — I just do not know — but the point is that it is an invitation to support a specific mission outside the operating mission budget of the denomination. That is very different than asking the denomination to underwrite something.

Not my most exciting summary. That will change.