FAQs

First, to take the pension and benefit costs out of the apportionments so that our apportionment giving can be more clearly addressed to mission. Second, since the current pension plan is based on compensation, not years of service, to place the responsibility for pension on the local church where compensation is determined.

It will make transparent the full cost for each clergy placement. That will allow for more fully informed missional personnel decisions.

It will not prevent us from helping churches in missional situations. We will do that through apportioned giving for equitable compensation, emerging congregations, special missional compensation, and ethnic minority congregations.

There are many assumptions in this question that need to be examined: about what is "reasonable," "expected," "financially successful," and the manner of appropriate "subsidization." We have been doing it this way – accepting many unexamined assumptions. I know of no churches that have extra money that could not be used for mission. The question is: Is the best way to do mission by subsidizing pension costs in more than 200 churches in this Conference?

The Annual Conference decides the number of districts. We currently have 7; the petition asks for 4.

The Bishop, in consultation with the Cabinet, makes those decisions. The Annual Conference has authority only for the number of districts.

Having 4 districts will enable the Conference to have more efficient and consistent Conference-wide communication and coordination. This past year there were 5 superintendents who were responsible for 7 districts. This year there will be 4 district superintendents, and adoption of this proposal would mean there would be 1 superintendent per district.

No. The number of districts doesn't directly translate into cost savings. The Bishop and Cabinet determine how to administer the Conference via the districts, and costs are impacted by factors such as office rental, operating expenses, materials distribution, and staffing.

The number of districts is the only matter that is before the Annual Conference.

However, plans are in place to make use of funds for superintendent-level positions for Leadership Development and for Ministry Effectiveness – including New Churches and Church Revitalization. In addition, pastor and church records will be converted to electronic media this summer. This will allow each superintendent to have access to information, regardless of where he or she is. No longer will a DS be dependent upon being physically present in an office in order to review documents.

It is important to remember that the supervision task is different from mission development. Technology advances in the past few years have made meetings and some supervisory tasks less dependent upon driving distances. Mission development will be shared with the circuits and lay leadership.

In our conference, for a number of years there has been a formula in the conference standing rules to calculate the minimum salary. The formula has been a fixed percentage of the conference average cash salary, adjusted by years of service. Over time, some aspects of this formulaic approach have become outdated, practices have grown up in using the formula that have had unintended consequences, and the rigidity of the formula has reduced flexibility that is needed in tough economic times.

The proposed changes eliminate the use of a formula and, instead, require the Equitable Compensation Commission annually to recommend a dollar amount to be the minimum salary for pastors in full connection and, separately, a dollar amount to be the minimum salary for pastors not in full connection.

The proposed changes in the standing rules will not, in and of themselves, establish any particular minimum salary level for the annual conference. They will only change the process by which the minimum salary is set: from a formula to an annual deliberation.

The thought is that local churches, as a matter of equity, should be taking years of service into consideration in establishing the salary level, but that the barebones minimum isn't a number that needs to be adjusted for seniority.

The confusion and misunderstanding has to do with some items that are not directly addressed by the rules, such as whether health insurance is to be provided for just the pastor or for the entire family. The rules don't say, and so there is confusion about what the obligation of the local church is, and about what the entitlement is. This is to be corrected by moving away from a rigid formula in the standing rules to a promulgation each year of exactly what the number is for the minimum compensation, and exactly what benefits are to be provided.