Comments for The church's other foundation (revised) at http://pres-outlook.net , comment 1 to 4 out of 4 comments http://pres-outlook.net Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:11:20 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/editorials/7445-the-churchs-foundation-revised.html#comment-3977 Dear Jack, Thanks for your recent editorial which mentioned Overture 85 from Synod of the Southwest, along with other issues coming to the 218th General Assembly. One expects issues to surface in the months before the assembly, and somewhat to our surprise this one has engendered more conversation than we expected. I want to clarify, however, some of the misunderstandings about the intention of Overture 85 that are reflected in your editorial in the May 26, 2008 issue. 1.Overture 85 seeks no change in the present General Assembly directive that all of six mission agencies invest monies using Mission Responsibility Through Investment guidelines. Any assumption that we are suggesting non-socially-responsible investment is a specious argument. OVT 85 does not change any directive established by the General Assembly regarding socially-responsible investing. 2.Overture 85 does not address ANY issues related to donor contributions to the Presbyterian Foundation. Instead, it addresses money placed with the Foundation by the GAC from the GAC’s receipts from donors not to be held in a permanent endowment. 3.The Foundation created in 1799 was not given the responsibility to manage medium and long-term major funds. That language – medium and long-term funds – is much more contemporary. The Foundation’s value for all of us has been its original purpose of receiving monies, to be held in trust, from faithful donor Presbyterians who wanted to further the mission of Jesus Christ through their church. In 1996, the PCUSA General Assembly added to the Foundation’s responsibilities the establishment of a mutual fund and a trust company to manage investments placed with the Foundation by congregations, governing bodies and individual donors. 4.Your editorial asserts that to invest money in any bank, mutual fund or trust company not affiliated with the PCUSA would in some way risk theological, ecclesiastical or mission integrity. That would surprise many congregations, individuals and governing bodies who invest their money faithfully and carefully with investment firms, banks and many with an emphasis on socially-responsible investments. Many congregations and governing bodies have established investment policies which include abiding by the Mission Responsibility Through Investment Guidelines, and in every way seek to embody the integrity and values we share as Presbyterians. What everyone seems to be forgetting is that prior to 1986, the membership of the General Assembly Council and the Foundation Board were identical. With the organization of the newly-reunited church and for the first time in our history, the Assembly Council no longer was in charge of the investment of their own non-permanent funds. Things have not always been the way they are now. Further, in 1996, when the GA gave permission to establish the New Covenant Trust Company and New Covenant Insurance Company, the GA established these boards but made them solely responsible to the Foundation with no direct accountability to the Assembly -- thus distancing the Foundation’s subsidiary corporations from the Assembly’s oversight. The Synod of the Southwest overture seeks to enable the GAC to exercise the same authority over its unrestricted funds as do all other agencies of the General Assembly. Sincerely, Janet M. DeVries Synod Executive & Stated Clerk Synod of the Southwest - The Presbyterian Outlook Tue, 27 May 2008 16:44:43 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/editorials/7445-the-churchs-foundation-revised.html#comment-3975 Dear Editor, I totally agree with you on the need to clarify the initial proposal and to make it more specific. Even though Ms Seed says: [i]The GAC and its leadership are absolutely committed to honoring fiduciary responsibility and donor intent, as we use funds to carry out General Assembly mission direction, and the policy and polity of our church.[/i] The [i]clarification[/i] by the ACC as reported does not show that committment to [i]fiduciary responsibility[/i]. With the lack of trust that is so apparent in the denomination, all this looks like to the average Presbyterian is a money grab, so that when [i]Per Capita[/i] funds are not enough to pay for salaries, instead of cutting staff, the GAC would be able to draw on these monies to continue on. However, this may just be a symptom of the PCUSA in general,as many churches are using their endowments to keep going, long after their congregations have dwindled to where they can no longer pay their way. Blessings. - Neil Zampella Sat, 24 May 2008 00:10:06 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/editorials/7445-the-churchs-foundation-revised.html#comment-3969 Dear Editor, While you are admirably restrained in your critique ("At minimum, the commissioners will want to ask some hard questions"), these proposals don't pass the laugh test and the GA should reject them. You're right with your hen house analogy. To extend it a bit, the fox is pawing at the hen house door and oughtn't to be let in. I'm grateful you have the commentary from Sam Martin who calls it as it is, a move to do what any trust officer knows isn't appropriate. - Dave Hackett Thu, 22 May 2008 12:33:49 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/editorials/7445-the-churchs-foundation-revised.html#comment-3968 Dear Jack, Reading your recent editorial "The church's other foundation" which suggests that the General Assembly Council is positioning itself to take control of dispersing donated funds at the Presbyterian Foundation, reminded me of the famous saying from Alice in Wonderland that it takes all the running you can do, to stay in the same place, and if you want to get somewhere else, you must run twice as fast as that. In recent months both the GAC and the Foundation have been running twice as fast to carry out our differing responsibilities in the overall mission of Christ's church as lived out in the Presbyterian Church(USA), and, speaking for the GAC, we have endeavored to do so in cooperation with each other and with proper guidance. Suggesting as you do that the General Assembly Council is positioning itself to take control of disbursing donated funds is disappointing and misinformed. I appreciate the revisions that you made when you posted your editorial online, but your print edition is less clear, and your readers should be absolutely clear about the GAC's position on these issues. Your editorial misses the mark when it analyzes the motivations of the GAC. The GAC and its leadership are absolutely committed to honoring fiduciary responsibility and donor intent, as we use funds to carry out General Assembly mission direction, and the policy and polity of our church. There are three fairly simple issues coming before the General Assembly involving donated funds. One involves the Church Extension Fund, established by the Board of National Missions decades ago. Fund restrictions were created, not by donors, but by the Board of National Missions, at the time, an operational General Assembly agency. The Foundation and the GAC have agreed that the General Assembly has the authority to change the restriction on these funds, supported by an advisory opinion from the Stated Clerk. Each board has acted, and we now seek General Assembly ratification. The second issue is a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on the Constitution that arose in response to a request jointly made by the Foundation and the GAC to the Stated Clerk. The ACC affirmed the advice of the Stated Clerk, and recommends a change as to which agency has authority to make decisions about funds. Any inference that the GAC is attempting to gain undue access to funds, or to disregard controls or fiduciary responsibilities is unfounded. The third issue comes from the Synod of the Southwest. The GAC did not prompt the issue. We don't even know if it is a good idea. This is why we are recommending a task force be formed by the Foundation and the GAC to look at the issues, paying particular attention to how canon/ecclesiastical law intersects with civil law in carrying out the fiduciary and missional responsibilities of the church. One can imagine having three items before the GA like this that there must be a grand scheme or conspiracy by the GAC. But, this simply isn't true. The GAC's leadership freely acknowledges our need for expeditious access to funds – our mission workers' salaries, our mission partners, needy students, new congregations and hungry children whom we care for are depending on our support. In all of this, however, the GAC remains completely committed to raising and spending our faithful donors' gifts with Christ like integrity. Allison Seed Chair, General Assembly Council Pastor, Trinity Presbyterian Church Independence, MO - Allison Seed Thu, 22 May 2008 10:25:48 +0100