based on feedback, findings, comparison, and analysis of
The Rev. Cookie Clark & the Mission Apportionment Committee
RECOMMENDED PROPOSAL:Graduated-Tier System
This method has three tiers of net disposable income: up to $60,000, between $60,001 and $120,000 and over $120,000. The ideal percentages would be 10%, 15% and 20%; however in order to reach those percentages it will be necessary to reduce the budget over 3 – 5 years, annually address at convention what percentages would apply to the following year, and/or increase stewardship. For 2010 we will propose a percentage for each tier that would generate the projected amount that the diocese needs to fund the diocesan budget. Net Disposable Income (NDI) upon which apportionment is based would be current income (as it is at present).
PRO—All congregations would pay the same percentage on NDI at each level. This is fair to all congregations without creating apportionment levels that are burdensome to small congregations. This is closest to the current system which seems to have worked fairly well and apportions to each according to their ability to pay.
CON—The calculation is more complicated than the other systems that are proposed.
REJECTED PROPOSAL 1: Retain Current System, Reducing Rate in Each Tier
This proposal retains the current system of using the congregational ranges to determine the apportionment rate paid by each congregation. The rates for each tier would be reduced by approximately 4.5% to adjust apportionment for the fact that congregations will be paying directly for clergy medical and workers’ compensation insurance.
PRO—Retains a system with which everyone is familiar.
CON—Retains a system, already agreed by many to have its flaws.
REJECTED PROPOSAL 2: Flat Rate
This proposal sets a flat rate that all congregations would pay. The NDI upon which that apportionment is based would be current income (as it is at present). All congregations would have the same percentage.
PRO—This is probably a “fair share” way to go. Using a giving-per-person rationale, each one would be paying an equal amount. The calculation will be simple. The largest congregations would pay less than currently.
CON—The smallest congregations would be hurt the most. These congregations would be expected to pay a larger percentage of their disposable income than they are currently, especially when they pick up health insurance costs. It would require large subsidies from the diocesan budget for the small congregations. It would not help the largest congregations very much.
REJECTED PROPOSAL 3: Apportionment Paid only on Amount above a Base Amount
This sets a minimum amount of NDI that will be excluded from apportionment (for example, the first $60,000 of NDI). A single percentage would be applied to the balance of the income. NDI upon which apportionment is based would be current income (as it is at present).
PRO—This would benefit small congregations. Some might not pay any apportionment.
CON—Medium and large congregations would bear the burden of supporting the diocese. They would find it difficult to grow as the burden of supporting the diocese would fall upon them. Small congregations would have a disincentive to grow as it would mean paying apportionment.
REJECTED PROPOSAL 4: Fixed Rate based upon Parochial Report information
This proposal takes the average of two prior years’ information on income from the Parochial Reports. (For example, 2007 and 2008 information will be used to determine 2010 apportionment since 2009 information is not available until March of 2010).
PRO—Apportionment due will be known when congregations are preparing their budgets for the following year. It is a fixed amount each month. All congregations pay the same percentage. In years when income is increasing, this is a benefit to the congregation.
CON—Parochial Report information is old. When income is falling, the congregation may be expected to pay more than is feasible. When income is rising, the Diocese will be behind inflation. In two years a congregation can change drastically due to circumstances beyond their control.
OTHER PROPOSALS that the committee considered
but agreed were not feasible for various reasons included:
“Love” gifts through which each congregation would decide
upon how much they would give to the diocese;
Tithe to the diocese (which would work wonderfully if all
members of all congregations also tithed); and
Very low flat rate percentages of 8 – 10% per congregation
|
