cc: "John Malcolm" , , "Liz Parfitt" , "Alan Strange" date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:56:15 -0000 from: "mdbach" subject: Re: Mission budget to: "Mike Hulme" Mike Thanks for clarifying one of the oddities in the budget!! Co-incidently (or divine providence, take your pick (!)) some vaguries of maths, and the fact we are operating a slight deficit, has resulted in the missionary giving in the 2001 budget tying up exactly with the original "guideline" level (budget non-mission expense of £217k at 28% == £61k, agreeing with the £61k (25% of income) actually budgetted!!). For my own part, I must admit that I find a decision to base guideline giving on "budgetted expenditure less that category of expense actually under consideration" somewhat unusual. Has anyone added this complication into the debate on personal tything yet!!!! The second subjective comment is that (whilst i note your comments) I am very firmly committed to the idea that our giving to mission should be an expense category in its own right, and not an "afterthought, after we've decided what we will spend on ourselves". [I find it odd to increase/reduce our level of missionary giving purely because we decide to take on/reduce our own staff or increase/reduce the transfer to restoration reserve or increase/reduce the church's surplus. These are not linked in any way. I believe a measure based upon level of income is more "objective" and will enable the PCC to be aware that an "adjustment" has arisen in any particular year (ie if we are increasing the giving it is because of a need/church has surpluses, if we are reducing the giving it is because we haven't identified a "need" (?!!?) or because we are tightening our belts generally) rather than it getting lost in "other decisions" eg on staffing/ transfers to restoration reserve.] Two other (objective) comments are: (a) The mission charter deosn't therefore say what it apparently was supposed to say. I suggest it therefore would need rewording to get the guideline right "When the PCC's annual budget EXPENDITURE (excluding Mission items)...." might be better. (b) 25% of income is "neater" (ie a quarter) than 28% of expenditure excluding mission. The best argument for retaining the current version is that 28% sounds more than 25%, however I fear this is merely kidding ourselves. Accordingly, my own view would be to amend the wording of the appropriate part of the mission charter whenever it next comes up for review (either to clarify it is budgetted expense, or to transfer this to an income-based approach). However not a major issue, and in the meantime I suggest we base future budgets on 25% of income (and i will note this in future budget commentary). Regards Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard and Hilary Beach To: Mike & Diane Bach (E-mail) Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 11:17 AM Subject: FW: Mission budget > Dear Mike, > I am forwarding this from Mike Hulme as he doesn't have your e-mail > address. > Love > Richard > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Hulme [SMTP:m.hulme@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 22 January 2001 11:16 > To: Hamford@clara.net > Cc: NParfitt@aol.com; bigal@paston.co.uk > Subject: Mission budget > > Dear Richard (copied to Alan and Liz Parfitt, via Nigel; I don't have Mike > Bach's email), > Your comment yesterday about the 'reduced' mission budget got me thinking. > I have checked some details with one of the PCC members, but the numbers > may still not be quite accurate. But I think the broad thrust is correct. > It seems to me that actually the PCC have approved an *increase* in both > absolute and relative amount given to mission in 2001. My reasoning is > this ............ > The Mission Charter (March 1997) states: > "When the PCCs annual budget (excluding Mission items) is agreed in > November, a fixed proportion of this budget should be added and earmarked > for PCC giving to Mission (i.e., national and international). We note that > during the mid-1990s this figure has remained fairly constant at 28%." > Note that this is 28% of the budget *excluding* Mission items, This > actually equates to 21.9% of the total budget *including* Mission items. > My understanding of the approved 2001 budget is that 25% of budgeted > income has been earmarked for Mission. I think a more accurate > interpretation of the Charter would have seen this figure at about 22%. To > give two examples: > Nominal > ------------ > budget excluding Mission = ?100k > Mission budget = ?28k (i.e., 28%) > total budget = ?128k > Mission as % of total = 21.9% > > Actual (2001??) > ----------------------- > budget excluding Mission = ?183k > Mission budget = ?61k (i.e, 33%) > total budget = ?244k > Mission as % of total = 25% > > According to the Mission Charter I think the situation would have been: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ----------------------------- > budget excluding Mission = ?183k > Mission budget = ?51.2k > total budget = ?234.2k > Mission as % of total = 21.9% > > Now you realise that I would be the last person in Trinity to advocate a > reduction in Mission expenditure, but I do think it is my duty to point out > that the PCC is actual being *more* generous to Mission than in any > previous year that I can remember (for example, I think the last year I was > on PCC the figures were something like ?46k to Mission out of about ?210k > total = 21.9%). And long may it continue! > It is also worth pointing out that by fixing Mission expenditure as a > *proportion* of total non-Mission spend (index-linking if you like), when > the church decides to spend more on 'internal' ministry (e.g. two new > posts) then automatically the church ends up spending more in absolute (not > relative admittedly) terms on non-parochial Mission. This was the > principle I was advocating, and would continue to advocate. > And the reason we designed the % figure in the Charter in this way (a way > that may have led to some confusion) was to index-link to 'internal' > expenditure rather than to total income, i.e., a proportion of what we > intend to 'spend' on ourselves, should be earmarked to 'spend' on others. > I trust this is helpful - and please let me know if *I* have > mis-interpreted the situation. Maybe this should be passed on to Mike Bach > also. > Mike > p.s. and for those who are interested, this was *not* the substance of my > question(s) for yesterdays Q&A session! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >