Kruse Kronicle

GAC February 11

—

by

mwkruse
in ,

The business on Saturday morning featured the reports of the major divisions. The proposal to make Presbyterian Disaster Assistance a separate corporation was a major issue. That in itself is not new. The idea has been under study, and there was expected to be some report to the General Assembly in 2008. What was new was an attempt to request a new corporation at the 2006 General Assembly. It had to be approved by the end of the GAC meeting to meet the General Assembly deadline. To make a long story short, there are many good reasons for making PDA a separate corporation, but it became clear that insufficient consideration had been given to the complexities of such a move. After some rather complex parliamentary difficulties, the decision was finally postponed to the April meeting, which means it won’t be officially spun off until 2008, if it happens at all.

Another business item featured a tense debate about staffing for the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP). ACSWP seemed to believe they had, or should have, the ability to select their own staff person. Yet legally, the ACSWP staff person is under the Executive Director. This would create a position where the Executive Director was responsible for a staff person they could neither hire nor fire. The decision was ultimately made to reject ACSWP’s proposal that they be able to select their own staff.

These were not necessarily the most important or monumental events. If you have followed Presbyweb or the PCUSA News Service, they have done a good job of reporting on the key events of the assembly. Hopefully, next week I can report on my overall take on the significance of this assembly.

Comments

5 responses to “GAC February 11”

  1. apostlejohn Avatar
    apostlejohn

    I feel the PDA is a very important part of the PCUSA. What is the advantage and disadvange of this?

    Reply
  2. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    Hi John,
    The primary issue is fund raising. Some organizations and governments will not give funds directly to churches/denominations for disaster and relief. This is particularly an issue in certain regions of the world. If PDA were a separate corporation they would eligible to receive funds they are presently denied. I think the plan, using business lingo, is to set PDA up as wholly owned subsidiary of the PCUSA. That would be sufficient to accomplish this goal. Other denominations have taken similar actions including I believe the Lutheran, Methodist and Episcopal denominations.
    The idea itself has merits but the Council had insufficient information. For instance, watchdog groups expect 85% or more of contributions to go directly to relief and assistance, not to overhead. Over the past year or so, PDA would have had no problem meeting that standard. However, Katrina and the tsunami elevated giving to more than ten times what it has typically been. Assume there are no major disasters for the next three years and giving returns to its previous levels of three or four million dollars. Meanwhile, PDA is spun off as a separate corporation. It will then be absorbing all the overhead costs that are so often undetectable when an entity like this is embedded in a larger corporation. Overhead will have gone up and donations will have declined. You could have PDA operating with 20-30-40% going to overhead. (15% of 3 million is $450,000) Watchdog groups would brand such an entity as unworthy of support, thus potentially hampering PDA’s ability to raise money.
    Also, PDA is a visible part of the work done at the denominational level. What would be the impact on mission giving if PDA were spun off? Would mission giving be hurt? Would PDA be hurt? I don’t know that these kinds of issues are a problem but that in itself is the problem. We don’t know and there were no answers available to us yet. I think we will know more over the next few months.
    Personally I think the idea has a lot of merit. Over the Twentieth Century there has been a strong impetus to absorb every conceivable ministry organization (Sunday School boards, women’s organizations, missionary societies) under one centralized bureaucracy. The trend has been away from that in favor of partnerships for some time. This idea may work but it needs to be done well.

    Reply
  3. will spotts Avatar
    will spotts

    A lot will depend on the specific details. Your concern about overhead is well-founded. There is a threshold below which maintaining a percentage becomes impossible. I’m also unsure about the usefulness of the funds for which it is currently inelligable. (Meaning part of the point is that it is a Presbyterian iniative as opposed to a way to funnel money from diverse corporate and government sources — other organizations can do that just as well. Who knows, maybe even better.)
    We should keep in mind, however, that PDA has been one of our more successful programs in terms of what it accomplishes, in terms of attracting donations, in terms of giving Presbyterians opportunities to genuinely help, and in terms of reputation. Any changes (such as formation of a separate entity) should be very well thought out beforehand.

    Reply
  4. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    “A lot will depend on the specific details.”
    That was the real sticking point for me. The Acton Institute has one of my favorite mottos: “Connecting good intentions with sound economics.” I actually suspect that the incorporation of PDA is a good idea and will ultimately happen. There simply had not been enough due diligence done to assure it is a good idea.

    Reply
  5. will spotts Avatar
    will spotts

    As long as it is carefully considered beforehand, it might well be the best choice.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Michael KruseCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading