News and Views

On April 21, members of the Baltimore-Washington Conference gathered to learn about issues coming before the May Annual Conference Session. They asked questions about the realignment, proposed budget, pensions and medical benefits, equitable compensation, resolutions coming before the session and nominations. The questions and answers follow.

Realignment of Discipleship Structure

Q: Why do we need to realign?

A: After extensive analysis of the current committee structure, clear that what we have been doing -- although once effective -- was no longer working. We are experimenting with a new way to realign and refocus to streamline shared missional efforts, awaken potential for partnerships, and shift the focus of hundreds of people from meeting to ministry, from silos to oneness, and from a few in the know to transparency. All in support of deepening discipleship and authentic collaboration. 

 Q: How will it impact my church?

A: At the core of everything that is being done is the mission of inspiring and equipping faith communities to make disciples for the transformation of the world. The emphasis on transparency, accomplishing a vast array of hands-on ministries using short-term task forces, and providing grants to faith communities for their ministries is expected to support discipleship in every local church that engages in the connectional system.

 Q: I hear that we have tried to realign before. What makes it different this time?

A: From the very beginning, this realignment has sought the feedback and practical wisdom of skilled servant workers already involved in each ministry area. The new structure also aligns the BWC to work more effectively with the four foci of the denomination and ensures that the work of every individual and team is effectively staffed; and relevant and impactful to our shared ministry goals.

Q: It appears that each of the five areas will have a huge body of work to cover. Is this manageable or will it create areas left untouched and underserved?

A: The strategic nature of the realignment will amplify the ministry of the conference while at the same time focusing efforts so that priorities are met and missional goals are made clear and achievable. In addition, the five tables will each utilize task forces and standing committees to ensure that both hands-on work and governance responsibilities are accomplished.

Q: What makes the “youth worker retreat” a budget priority when we have no effective youth ministry in several districts and at some local churches?

A: This is exactly why we are investing in leader development in youth ministry! A youth worker is someone -- paid or unpaid -- entrusted with building strong disciples who are in middle or high school. This involves equipping people for connecting with youth who are not yet a part of the church as well as youth who are.

 Q: How will the realignment affect ministry that is already effective at the local church level?

A: As we live together into the realignment, it is expected that the potential for Christ-centered work at every level of the church will expand. We seek to learn from an multiply what is working at the local church level, not detract from it.

 Q: What impact will the new mission statement have on conference alignment?

A: It is already baked in. The mission of inspiring and equipping faith communities to develop disciples for the transformation of the world is at the heart of the realignment and of all the BWC seeks to do.

 Proposed 2019 Budget

 Q: I understand that you are trying to be optimistic, but what
happens if more churches threaten to leave and/or withhold apportionments because they are dissatisfied? Will the benevolence factor rise?

A: The proposed CFA risk mitigation plan is based on keeping the same benevolence factor.  The plan proposes a combination of expense reductions by both the Conference and the General Agencies along with draws from the Conference reserves to close gaps in the budget.

 Q: Are all the grants in the proposed budget already acquired or do they still have to be applied for and granted?

A: The grants in the 2019 budget still need to be applied for and granted.  The grants are used to supplement the apportionments already allocated in the various ministry areas.  If grants are not received, then the expenses will be reduced accordingly.

 Q: Are there grants for improvements on church buildings?

A: The Conference Trustees fund grants and loans for improvements on church buildings.  Applications are made via the Unified Funding Task Force.

 Q: Is there a specific budget breakdown for Young People’s Ministry?

A: The specific budget breakdowns for all ministry areas are found online. An Excel spreadsheet and a pdf of the budget, with links from this webpage, provide detailed listings of each budget area.

 Q: In the new funding ministry figures, are there staffing costs (administrative costs) already intended to be allocated in these numbers or are these monies open for new ministry?

A: The staffing costs for the five new ministry areas are grouped together in the Discipleship Ministries area.

Q: When a church is not able to pay apportionments, what are the options and what resources are available?

A: The church leadership work with the District Superintendent when they are not able to pay full apportionments.  Depending on the specific nature of the situation, the District Superintendent will work with the church leadership to develop a plan that can be focused on improved ministry, outreach, stewardship and/or reduction in expenses.  There are a variety of ministry and financial resources within the Conference that can be used to help churches in this situation.

 Q: Trustees are giving $200,000 to new faith expressions. What percentage is that from the total of income from closed churches?

A: The $200,000 is 20 percent of the current assets of $1 million held by the Conference Trustees from the sale of closed churches.  The amount is 5 percent of the total assets of $4 million which includes the long-term debt payments involved with some of the church sales.

 Q: A comment on the CFA presentation: Our local church has alreadyfelt a significant impact from tax law changes. We anticipate that our higher income givers will give on a two-year basis. What are your thoughts?

A: Churches should encourage givers to contact a Certified Public Accountant to help them develop methods under the new tax laws for optimizing their individual tax benefit while still meeting the regular budgetary needs of the church.  Professionals may be able to offer them financial plans by which both objectives can be met.

Q: How can we get slides from the financial presentation?

A: The PreCon slides are posted online.  

Pensions and Health Benefits

Q: In regards to arrearages, it was reported that 10 churches have been able to work out their difficulties with funding. What is the status of the others who are still have arrearages?

A: A total of 15 churches are in the forbearance process. Ten of the churches are now current in their benefit payment and the old debt is in the process of being transferred as a contingent receivable attached to the property.  The other five churches were provided a 12 month extension of the forbearance process since they each appeared to be close to completing actions that would enable them to become current. Since that extension was offered, one of the five churches has already successfully reached that objective.

Q: Why is there a pre-1982 level in the pension presentation?

A: Unlike post-1982 plans which are tied to individual accounts, the pre-1982 plan requires the Conference to maintain a pool of money from which to pay pension obligations incurred before 1982, and to determine each year by vote of the annual conference what the payment per year of credited pre-1982 service will be. We will need to keep doing this until all clergy whose ministry included years prior to 1982 have left us.

 Q: The yearly expenses are being outpaced by the increase in insurance premiums and other medical expenses. An example: My insurance premium has increased over $100 per month while the Health Flex account has increased by only about $100 a year. Each year the gap grows bigger. Is anything being done to help those of us whose income doesn’t cost these increases? The yearly raises are insufficient.

A: We recognize the problems that people face and endeavor the make the increases as high as we can, consistent with other requirements which we are balancing.

 Equitable Compensation

Q: Why if the recommendation that conference staff receive a2.5 percent, is the recommendation for an increase for clergy only a 2 percent raise?

A: This question is a little bit “apples and oranges.” It should be noted that we are budgeting two years in advance. But more important, the conference staff increase is an average raise. Some employees get more than two percent, others get less. In addition, this recommendation is just a minimum requirement. Churches can pay their pastors more. But Equitable Comp did not want to set the minimum too high, because they are aware that, for some congregations, coming up with a 2 percent raise can be a hardship and may force churches to go from full-time to part-time clergy coverage.

 Q: With continued increases in base minimum salary, many
churches can't afford this. How are we resourcing our churches, especially in Baltimore City, to meet these new requirements?

A: As missional strategists, each superintendent continues to work with clergy and lay people to increase stewardship, grow in missional capacity, strengthen leadership and design the most effective staffing to meet the spiritual needs of the congregation and community.

 Q: I know deacons serving in local congregations who are not being compensated equitably (as per para. 331.10b). What is the Equitable Comp Committee doing to help?

Unless they are informed by the district superintendent, committee members have no way of knowing about these situations. At this time the committee is not addressing this issue.

There are six resolutions coming to the 2018 Annual Conference Session: 

Moving Policy Resolution

Q: How will the new tax law regarding clergy moving expenses affect the budget, will it realize a gain or a loss?

A: The 2019 moving expense budget is being increased by $20,000 to fund the changes in the moving policy.  Contingency funds from the 2018 budget will be used to fund the 2018 impact, if necessary. 

 Q: The percentage is very high based upon the new tax rates. It would require a single pastor to make more than $157,000 to pay a 30 percent tax rate.

A: The 30% tax liability allowance to defray the taxable benefit to clergy for a conference paid moving expense is not based solely on a pastor’s federal tax liability. The allowance also covers the pastor’s state tax and their self-employment tax liabilities. 

An example:  If a pastor’s moving expense is $3,000 and this is paid by the Conference directly to the vendor, then the pastor will also receive a tax liability allowance check directly from the Conference in the amount of $900 (30% of the moving expense).  At the end of the year, the pastor will receive a Form 1099-MISC for non-employee compensation from the Conference in the total benefit amount of $3,900.

 Resolution on Africa University and the Government of Zimbabwe

Q: Is there any explanation/rationale for the votes of non- concurrence from the Connectional Table and CFA?

A: The Council on Finance and Administration believed that the cost of an investigation into these matters would be too high. Both CFA and the Connectional Table questioned if the annual conference would be the most appropriate level for this kind of query to be done. The resolution maker, Mr. Schmidt, disagrees. He had envisioned that this committee, in today’s interconnected world, would do its work locally. He expected some local travel and report printing costs and estimated conservatively a $5,000 amount. Not wishing to cause any burden to the Conference, Mr. Schmidt has asked to cover all costs on his own.

Connectional Table members spoke passionately about the integrity of the leaders of Africa University. They also noted that having two of the 30 members of The Board of Directors “selected by Government” is standard practice with private educational institutions in Zimbabwe.  In fact, it is very advantageous for AU to have this relationship and direct access to both the Ministry of Finance and The Ministry of Higher Education.  The Government of Zimbabwe is the body that ultimately provides the tax free and duty-free status that AU clearly needs to operate.  In addition, the Government of Zimbabwe is a key party in the process of approving the Charter under which AU exists.

The relationship between Africa University, the church and the government is complex. However, Connectional Table members assert that AU has not been silent in the face of political and economic issues in Zimbabwe.

Mr. Schmidt responded that this resolution was written for the consideration of the general body of the Conference and was expected not to receive Connectional Table approval precisely because it challenges a traditional historical view of The United Methodist Church’s work in Zimbabwe.  Supporters of the University’s current status fail to address the sub-standard credentials of board members, which would not be tolerated by almost all higher education institutions. Standard practice of board representation in a totalitarian state like Zimbabwe is not standard practice in other countries in East and Southern Africa. Comments on the advantage of relationships with government finance entities do not justify the actions of Africa University; they only serve to accentuate the problem presented in the resolution. Mr. Schmidt states that he would not begin to question the integrity of leaders of Africa University, but he does question their judgment in their understanding of Zimbabwe history and their unintentional participation in that history.

 Q: How does the maker of the resolution respond to criticism of the resolution?

Mr. Schmidt of Grace UMC in Baltimore simply asks, “Why has the Conference never been confronted with a more realistic picture of the real Zimbabwe?” It is, he said, one of the poorest countries on earth, where tens of thousands have been murdered under the yoke of a cruel and corrupt government. In the past 15 years since the world has fully recognized the depravity of the Zimbabwe government and its leader, Mr. Schmidt claims that there is nothing in the historical record saying that Africa University has spoken out. Prior to that, the University presented its first diploma to Robert Mugabe, the dictator who was the architect of state-sponsored corruption and cruelty. Mugabe collected degrees and honors, most of which that were awarded externally have been rescinded.

Mr. Schmidt said this resolution is “not designed to cast stones,” but simply to examine the relationship between Africa University and the government of Zimbabwe and help the University and its leadership to move forward in a period when Zimbabwe, for the first time in 40 years, has a glimmer of hope of change.

Q: Is this a good use of resources?

A: The resolution’s maker pointed out that the BWC is required to pay annually an amount of approximately $57,000 in its General and Jurisdictional apportionment to support Africa University. He estimated that the BWC spends at least an additional $50,000 per year from BWC funds on programs at Africa University. He thought that the estimated expenses of $5,000 were not significant in comparison, and he has offered to pay the $5,000 of estimated research and report printing costs personally, if that would remove an objection from the Conference body.

Q: Is there any reason to believe university funds are being funneled to government leaders?

A: No. Mr. Schmidt stated that there is absolutely no reason to believe that.

 Q: Regarding Africa University, does the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry exercise oversight that is being requested by this resolution?

A: Mr. Schmidt replied that is unclear at this moment. The General Conference initially funded Africa University in 1988, and all United Methodists contribute through a general apportionment. The General Board of Higher Education and Ministry has a very broad and complex mission to train and prepare lay and clergy leaders. Africa University is one of scores of worldwide institutions that contribute to that mission, but there is no indication that the GBHEM directly supervises Africa University or has ever involved itself in the details in the relationship between Africa University and the government of Zimbabwe. The GBHEM website says that it has “an advisory and consultative relationship to all United Methodist-affiliated institutions.”

Why is this resolution necessary?

A: Mr. Schmidt replied that he greatly appreciates this question. The origin of the resolution grows out of a fundamental disconnect at our conference level between what is annually presented at Annual Conference as to Africa University and its host country of Zimbabwe and what is the exceptionally desperate, cruel and corrupt realities of Zimbabwe.  As mentioned, this resolution is designed to inform the collective body of the Conference, and there are few mechanisms within the The UMC conference structure for individuals or organizations to reach the full conference body, short of the admittedly limited resolution mechanism. Another aspect of this question is “Why is this a matter that our conference should consider?”  The answer to that question is that we are citizens of the world.  We have a long and deep relationship with Africa University, and we support and care for the well-being and future of the University -- probably more than any single conference outside of Zimbabwe. We have substantial international resources within the Washington, DC region. We are a connectional people, and if our Conference is best positioned to assist Africa University, then we should do so and not look elsewhere.

Q: What research do you have to substantiate your allegations?

A: Substantial online research, including newspaper reports, magazine articles, non-governmental organization and international watchdog reports, historical writings, and government, university or other organization press releases. Church and University websites are most revealing in themselves. Discussions with contacts in the field of International Development who provide advisory services worldwide on governance and good government issues. Discussions with an Africa University board member representative. Older articles such as “Mugabe and the Churches” by James Kirchick, currently a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institutions, are particularly insightful. The facts surrounding the extent of the Mugabe regime’s instigation of genocide, corruption, and political murder are not in dispute outside of Zimbabwe. The level of collaboration between Africa University and the Zimbabwe government and any justifications for these actions would be at the heart of any factual dispute stemming from this resolution. Hence, the call for a knowledgeable committee to investigate and make recommendations.

Love Without Qualification Resolution

Q: How can any Christian not affirm this? Is the problem love orthe Wesleyan focus on the primacy of Scripture?

A: Baltimore-Washington Area Reconciling United Methodists, who brought this resolution, say they hope everybody can affirm this; and rather than focus on the primacy of Scripture, BWARM hopes love is what directs us in all that we do.

 Resolution on Adopting the Way Forward Covenant

Q: Is the process the Commission on a Way Forward used really able to be implemented outside of a closed, small group?

A: Rather than a process, the covenant is more about behaviors that are basic to any conversation on a challenging topic. These principles are applicable in any conversation we might have.

Q: Are you suggesting the Circle of Grace's, are not comfortable settings for honesty?

A: No, everything should start with conversations. BWARM are willing to look at other possibilities, but belives if you don’t start with relationship, those conversations are hard.

 Resolution on Calling for Inclusion

Q: Since the Commission on the Way Forward and 2019 General Conference have not acted, should we not wait until a decision has been made?

A: Before any decisions are made, we can start the process of knowing and understanding each another and find places where we can have hard conversations together. The hope is that we come to a place where we can affirm one another. That seems appropriate right now.

 Nominations

Q: In the nominations report, what do the abbreviations mean? (SO, BA, etc.)

A: They are abbreviations for the four regions of the BWC: Southern, Baltimore, Washington and Western.

 Q: If we are currently serving on a BWC team, do we have to submit an interest form to continue to serve on our designated team in the current quadrennium?

A: The Nominations Committee would like everyone to fill out the interest form. Their goal is that every member in the conference might one day fill out a form.

 Q: Where do we go to locate the interest form?

A: The form is online at https://arenaweb.bwcumc.org/default.aspx?page=3660

Other issues

Q: I have heard there is a congregation in the Baltimore-Washington Conference that wants to leave The United Methodist Church. What can you tell us about that?

A: Leaders of Oakland UMC in Charles Town, W.Va., have held conversations with their district superintendent, the Rev. Edgardo Rivera, notifying him of their intention to leave The United Methodist Church. See an FAQ about this issue.

Q: The hotel rooms at annual conference seem to sell out quickly. What arrangements does the BWC make to address this? 

A:  Our room block is 605, of a total of 640 rooms at the Waterfront Marriott Hotel. Approximately 20 percent of those are used by staff, guests, vendors who support the annual conference and others. As all hotels must, the Waterfront holds back a percentage of rooms for their brand members for whom rooms are “always” guaranteed and probably a few more. Contracts with overflow hotels are usually secured for no more than 15 or 20 rooms per hotel because they are all self-pay. It is risky for BWC to “guarantee payment” for hotel rooms away from the Conference site unless we need to house last minute guests. In those instances, we will move a staff person to the overflow hotel so the guest can be on-site. 

The number of rooms blocked at the Wardman Park in 2016 and 2017 (650 of their 1,100) was based on our history at the Waterfront. There were other group events in meeting spaces there for whom sleeping rooms were required so we could not have “run of the house” as we do in Baltimore where we contract for use of every meeting space in the hotel.