The following is a copy of a statement that was sent to the Joshua Generation Leadership Team, by Rev. Joe A. Malayang on Feb. 2, 2009. We have posted the document, with permission of the author.
_________________________________________________________
After a long period of reflection, with much inner struggle, my conscience compels me to support the Joshua Generation statement and its assessment of the proposed governance restructuring of the national setting of the United Church of Christ.
The proposed structure is money-driven, not mission-driven, the statement argues. I agree that the current push for another structure is not mission–driven; it has always been, still is, primarily money-driven. From the very beginning of the current “restructure” scheme, money was driving the conversation. Control by one office of all or most of the assets or funds was always the underlying albeit unspoken impetus, although it came out openly in a couple of early proposals and discussion. The restructuring advocates consistently painted a picture of diminishing resources (meaning OCWM), of insufficient funds to pay for the “Still Speaking” initiative, and that dollars were unnecessarily spent on an “inefficient” and “cumbersome” four-covenanted ministry structure. (The implication was that a single governance would save lots of money, would be more efficient and less “cumbersome” – a debatable proposition.) Yet, during many of those years, denominational OCWM giving was up, per the CFO’s own reports to the Executive Council itself. Part of the problem was the financial development office (OGM-based) was not yet generating new funds for the work of the church. Also, many Conferences were increasing their own share (i.e., withholding) of OCWM funds to meet their own needs, acting unilaterally and/or because national leadership failed to negotiate with them the split as it was done in the past. The idea of another governance restructuring – just some five years into the still-creating, still-shaping of the 2000 mission-driven structure – was, and is, all about money, the use and control of the church’s assets. (At the same time, the push for another restructuring was, and is, costing the church a lot of money!)
There was the mentality and inference that much of the church funds were concentrated in two or three of the “covenanted ministries” and not available “equally” to all four. Yet the 2000 restructure did move funds and assets (from UCBHM and UCBWM principally) to the four covenanted ministries. The basis of distribution was the operating principle of “dollars following mandates,” painstakingly naming the programmatic mandates and then moving budgets and supporting assets to the Covenanted Ministry where the mandates went or were lodged. When the 1999 General Synod approved a mission-driven, mission-oriented structure, the “big boards” voluntarily transferred appropriate funds to the Covenanted Ministries to support their respective mission, ministries and operations. Those with more programmatic mandates necessarily received more of their funds. “Dollars following mandates.”*
On an important principle, centralization of power in the national setting on one governing board is contrary to UCC polity and is simply dangerous. What started as a desire for “streamlining” the 2000 structure evolved into another restructuring initiative. Acceptable if not desirable incremental changes turned into a systemic change strategy. Not only is it not mission-driven, as currently envisioned, the proposed governance restructure will diminish significantly the mission foci which were the intent and genius of the 2000 restructure: the focus of supporting local churches, the focus of strengthening justice witness, the focus of affirming “wider church” or missionary enterprise and partnerships – mission foci or goals embedded in a covenanted ministry or corporate body to implement. It’s already happening. The centralization of power and decision-making on a single governance board – the UC Board of Directors (a disguise of the old Executive Council) – will mean the loss of authority and independent initiative of the program bodies (LCM, Justice Witness, Wider Church); that is, their respective boards and program staffs will be controlled by a “higher” board. As envisioned, the Covenanted Ministries (especially LCM, JWM, and WCM) will - in effect if not in fact - become subsidiary corporations, no longer autonomous and independent, but subject to the actions of the “parent” corporation: the UC Board of Directors which can (and will) then control them, override their actions, or even dissolve any of them.
I understand that one Conference Minister argued that the 2000 structure is “chaotic.” That same Conference Minister’s own Conference, as I recall, received significant grants and support from LCM precisely because LCM’s staff and its board acted decisively and was not subject to a “higher” board’s - or another layer of - decision. That would have been chaotic. Another Conference Minister has described the 2000 mission-driven structure as “balkanized” (unfortunately suggesting, in the current usage of the term, “mutually hostile units”). Interestingly, the term is more descriptive of the 38 fragmented and zealously independent Conferences than it is of the Covenanted Ministries. One might ask: can the church really afford to support that many “balkanized” (in the sense of mutually exclusive) Conferences? And are there Conferences, including that Conference Minister’s own, ready to give up its autonomy, merge, surrender or share its assets?
As an aside, I am puzzled by the inability of the Covenanted Ministries’ boards of directors to act in accordance with their moral and legal duty to look after the well-being and mission of their respective entity, i.e., to define, protect, and advance the mission of the organization, to safeguard the assets for current and future ministries, and to give direction to its executive, to name a few of its duties. Each entity board, while acting covenantally with others for the good of the whole church, is supposed to act independently and with integrity. Perhaps a lesson can be learned from the recent collapse of major US financial and business institutions which could partly be blamed on boards that did not exercise diligently its fiduciary responsibility, the Enron effect.
Locating the governance authority in one single board – the UC Board of Directors – is not only contrary to UCC polity (autonomy of church entities from local churches to associations to conferences to covenanted ministries to General Synod bound in a covenant of common mission); it’s just not the UCC we know it to be. The cherished UCC tradition of multiple layers of autonomy - a hedge against a top down, authoritarian style of religious leadership - will mean that General Synod will have control of all “covenanted ministries” through its Executive Council (renamed the UC Board of Directors), whereas, per the 2000 restructure, they are autonomous yet bound by a covenant of mission to serve the whole church.
As for the so-called Collegium of Officers, in the proposed governance restructure, it will be a “collegium” in name only, no longer “separate but equal” officers working collegially and consultatively, cooperatively and collaboratively as intended in the 2000 structure.
I believe that there is wisdom in listening to the ardent voices of the Joshua generation, to the authentic concerns of the historically marginalized groups, as there should be prudence in honoring and respecting the earnest counsel of other church leaders, indeed the leaders in the pews and pulpits of our churches whose sole agenda is the good and vitality of the United Church of Christ. (jm:1/28/09; 2/2/09)
_____
*In addition to the fund transfers from the boards’ assets, national OCWM share previously split among the different offices or entities (CCW, OCIS, SC, OCLL, BHM, BWM, EC) also moved to the Covenanted Ministry where their program mandates went in the 2000 structure. (A different split formula then went into effect to support of the 2000 structure or the Covenanted Ministries, including the Pension Boards.)
No comments:
Post a Comment