“No new money.”
I hope Joey Bailey, Deputy Executive Director for Shared Services, goes to every committee and exhorts them with that one sentence. “No new money.” No new studies, no new committees, or task forces. As I mentioned yesterday, our annual mission budget has dropped from $97 million to $80 million in 6 years.
What that means is that not every good thing or every idea is capable of being pursued. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) cannot underwrite every study that someone wants to do. This does not mean things should not be studied, it is a question of whether such a study is the priority with the scarce and diminishing resources available to the denomination. There actually are two questions to ask:
a. Can we afford it?
b. Is it worth it?
I raise the issue of money here because there are several items in Assembly Committee #10 that would require new money to be spent.
1. Item 10-06 requests the General Assembly Mission Council to “create a study group to examine the issue of violence against women and children along the United States-Mexico border…” No financial impact statement is available yet.
There is a comment from the GAMC under the rationale that — summed up — says, “We can’t afford it and it would not accomplish what it is intended to do.” Does this mean we support violence against women and children along the United States-Mexico border? Absolutely not. Advocating the prevention of violence is a good thing. However, is this the good thing the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) can afford to do right now? Are there other good things that take priority over this one? Or, in the alternative, should those with passion for this issue seek outside funding and present the recommendations and results to a later Assembly? The reality is: approving this will mean cutting something else down the line.
2. Similarly, Item 10-09 from the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy requests the General Assembly approve new money be spent to direct ACSWP to do a study
that assesses the long-term implications of our current economic trends and practices, including their impact on the church itself, and provides appropriate recommendations for consideration by members, congregations, presbyteries, and local, state, and federal government. This assessment should center on the role of fairness and justice in our economy, with particular attention to growing inequality, the decline of the middle class, the tax structure, the shifting makeup of the labor force and its effects on employee rights, the role of regulatory agencies in protecting the public interest, and access to environmental resources that is equitable and sustainable.
Is this a study the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) can afford? To what end? How is it different than the library of social witness studies and statements (see Chapter 7: Economic Issues, about 2/3 of the way down) with Social Witness statements issued in 1956, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996 1999, 2006 under the headings “Poverty in the United States,” “The Church as an Agent in the Economy,” and “A Just Economic Order.” How much have all of those statements cost and what have they accomplished? Did you even know they existed? If not, don’t approve new money for another study until you know the results and substance of what already-spent money has produced.
3. Item 10-11 concerns ACSWP’s recommendations regarding public education. There are a bunch of recommendations, most which have the action words: approve, receive, affirm, urge, call, encourage, express, recognize, support and others that do not have financial impact. Two of the recommendations would require new money:
6.b. Develop and/or provide appropriate study materials for individual and congregational use to stimulate dialogue and action on the concerns identified in Loving Our Neighbors: Equity and Quality in Public Education (K-12);
7. Direct the Presbyterian Washington Office (PWO) and other appropriate entities of the General Assembly to communicate to the president of the United States and members of the U.S. Congress
Same standards apply: is developing these study materials something the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) can afford to develop or are there other entities better situated to do so? Why are they necessary in addition to the materials already produced in “Loving Our Neighbors: Equity and Quality in Public Education (K-12)?
4. Item 10-10 is an interesting one for commissioners. ACSWP is requesting the General Assembly direct the six related agencies (GAMC, OGA, PILP, Foundation, PPC, BOP) to establish compensation ratios. This pits the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) against the GAMC. The others have not yet weighed in; though I would be surprised if BOP or the Foundation would be in support. The comment from the GAMC begins, “The General Assembly Mission Council (GAMC) requests that the 219th General Assembly (2010) not approve recommendations 2.c.(1) and 2.c.(2).” The comment notes ACSWP is trying to have GA apply a policy that has been supplanted . This is one of the rare occasions where this committee may end up seeing representatives from different denominational entities requesting and advocating completely contrary things.
5. One other item that I am not going to follow closely but will be curious to see how it is handled: Item 10-01 seeks to have the General Assembly “protest in the strongest possible terms the blatant disregard for the sanctity of our Lord’s name in motion pictures and public broadcasting by the entertainment industry and direct the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly to send letters to officials of organizations representing the motion picture and public broadcasting industries and members of the United States Congress.” If we amend it to “letters or electronically communicate” to have no financial impact, perhaps it has a chance to get through.