Please see the earlier post for the Program Ministries report entailing the overview of the various ministries. This entry will deal with the funding and budgeting of the various interests of the Conference.
Chair, Jerry Severns, presented the budget for our recommendations, amendments, and discussion. He admonished the body to remember that the budget was not something that “we are doing to the local church.” We must take ownership for this budget and work for the accomplishment of these financial goals–because we are the ones who set it.
Severns broke the columns into mandated General Conference requirements, necessary benefits funding, and the amounts we can control.
He focused first and foremost on those amounts which may be controlled by the body. The request, before amendment, is $4,049, 326.00. Based on an anticipated 80% apportionment payout of $3,201, 835.00, we expect to fall short by $847, 491.00.
By restricting the overspending, this shortfall is manageable through spending controls.
There is one significant financial element in the apportionment picture of our Conference. It is probably responsible for the greatest shortfall. Proportional payout, mandated by the Book of Discipline, refers to the fact that pastors who are receiving 100% of their recommended salary are responsible for seeing to it that the recommended apportionments are paid. Since this applies to conferences as well as churches, we have a deficit as a Conference.Â
Severns then called upon the Bishop and Cabinet to rectify this situation, since CF&A has no enforcement powers or authorities. And he called upon the Conference Body to see to it that the local church abides by its Disciplinary responsibilities for payment of their fair share of the apportionment.
 Jerry Brewster recommended that the flat rate of apportionment be amended to omit the capital expenditures, debt reduction, and the amount of any Advance Special (after 100% payment). His motion was seconded and discussed. It passed by majority vote.
The report was adopted.
Note: This means that we will be using the exact same formula as last year, less the caps and “phase-in.” Though the flat percentage formula was favored by many, this approach once again allows for exceptions and a fairly complex formula.