| The Erik Equation for General Conference Heres an idea to increase giving in The United Methodist Church AND make General Conference more equitable in its representation. I call it, just because I can, The Erik Equation. Applied in the United States, it will have a drastic effect on how annual conferences pay their General Fund apportionments and, at the same time, have voice and vote at General Conference. The idea behind The Erik Equation (TEE) is that annual conferences that support the church with their money at 100 percent get to have full representation at General Conference, the place where decisions are made about how, where and when the money is spent. In a nutshell, TEE works like this: If you (the annual conference) dont pay in full, you dont get full voice or vote. But first, a brief history lesson. At the 2000 General Conference in Cleveland, following 60 minutes of debate, delegates adopted a new formula for electing representatives to the highest legislative body in the church. Instead of the formula being weighted heavily towards the number of clergy in an annual conference, the new formula, now chiseled in plaster in 502 of the 2000 Book of Discipline, says that the number of delegates shall be computed on a two-factor basis: the number of clergy members of the annual conference, and the number of members of local churches in the annual conference. I say all this because it is important. It is important because next week, when the 2004 General Conference gathers in Pittsburgh, the voting body assembled in the David L. Lawrence Convention Center will look somewhat different than it did just four years ago. For example, the two southern jurisdictions (Southeast and South Central) will comprise 448 out of 998 voting delegates. In 2000, that number was 430, so the increase is roughly 4 percent. By comparison, the two northern jurisdictions (North Central and Northeast) will have only 308 this time, instead of 2000s 344, a reduction of 10.4 percent. And for those of you keeping score at home, the last of the U.S.-based jurisdictions (Western) has a paltry 44 delegates, instead of 56 (a reduction of 14 percent). The Congo Central Conference alone, with 52 delegates, has more than the Western Jurisdiction. (And to be sure, the rapid rise in delegates from Central Conferences and the shifting population to the southern United States impacts these numbers. Church membership is indeed growing in these places and should be celebrated.) I know it is too late to add another petition to the 2004 General Conference, but if I could, heres what The Erik Equation would say. In tabulating the number of delegates each United States annual conference receives, the final number shall be arrived by multiplying the total from 502 of the Discipline by the percentage of apportionments each annual conference pays to the General Fund over the preceding four years. Lets do an example (and this ones easy trust me). The Baltimore-Washington Conference has paid 100 percent of its General Fund apportionments for the last seven years. In fact, in 1997, we paid 104.5 percent. Thus, since we have 18 delegates to the 2004 General Conference, using the apportionment factor of 100 percent, TEE says we would keep our 18 delegates. Lets do another example. The Virginia Annual Conference, our wonderful neighbors to the south, has the largest delegation 32 to General Conference in 2004. (In fact, Virginia plus just about any other annual conference in the Southeastern Jurisdiction have more delegates than the entire Western Jurisdiction.) In 2002, Virginia paid 96.2 percent of its General Fund apportionments. In 2001, it was 95.6 percent. Using TEE, we see that 96 percent (an estimation, to be sure, but I think Im close) of Virginias 32 delegates equals 30.72. Lets be nice and round that up to 31. So, because Virginia did not pay its fair share, they lose one delegate. Would that be clergy or laity? Well let them decide. Get the idea? The California-Nevada Conference has one of the worst apportionment records on record. In 2002, they paid 57.7 percent. They have 10 delegates to the 2004 General Conference, based on membership and clergy and all that jazz. You do TEE. Instead of 10, they would now have 6. In the Northeast, the conference with the worst General Fund apportionment percentage is New York. In 2002, it was 79.9 percent; in 2001, 76.5 percent. Using 78.2 percent as an average, TEE takes their 14 delegates and whittles that down to 11. This kind of legislation might never pass at General Conference, but it is my attempt to address the following piece of news: In 2003, 11 annual conferences contributed 100 percent to the General Fund. They are Baltimore-Washington, Central Pennsylvania, Desert Southwest, Detroit, Illinois Great Rivers, Minnesota, Oklahoma Indian Missionary, Peninsula-Delaware, Red Bird Missionary, West Michigan and Wisconsin. Did you notice that no annual conferences in the South Central or Southeastern Jurisdictions, the group that had its representation rise 4 percent at General Conference while all the others dropped, made the list? Just checking. It is one thing to be the largest annual conference in terms of membership and clergy, it is quite another thing to be a conference that supports mission and ministry with its dollars. Its time to combine the two. Its time to put our money where our Jesus is. | 
Login/Register to leave comment