Presbytery would have any number of ways of "disciplining" (for lack of a better word) a congregation that refused to pay its assessments. They could refuse to declare a vacancy or make an appointment the next time there was a change in ministers; they could undertake a 333 review and declare the pastoral charge in an unsatisfactory state (based on its refusal to abide by the polity of the United Church) and ultimately take over the governance of the congregation. In my own Presbytery we have a large church that simply isn't paying its assessments (while smaller churches with many more struggles do pay their assessments.) This church also annually avails itself of the Presbytery run Vacation Bible School that's available for congregations who can't or don't want to run their own. Current thinking is - not next year, unless you've paid up.

Ultimately this is a matter of covenant and connection. There are certain obligations we accept to be a part of the United Church. A failure of one to live up to those obligations impacts everybody else. My church has a fairly large assessment which we pay faithfully even though we struggle to make ends meet, and I'm pretty irritated that the biggest church in our Presbytery apparently can't be bothered.

Having said that, the end of this is near in my opinion. Many congregations are simply getting to the point where they won't be able to pay their assessments. It won't be refusal; it will simply be inability. Then, the house collapses (because Conferences won't be able to pay the staff who are supposed to be taking over some of the duties that Presbyteries haven't been able to do)  and we'll start anew.

The assessment is most certainly mandatory and (according to the Manual) is to be paid ahead of utility bills or buying supplies or property maintenance.  The only category of expense before the Assessment is to pay the salary/pension/benefits/statutory deductions for ministry personnel and other staff.

COnsequence for not paying?  Well I suppose that would depend on how (if) the Presbytery chooses to act.  In an extreme action the Presbytery could determine that the failure to pay the assessment is a sign that the Pastoral Charge is no longer functioning and conduct an inquiry under section 333.  The result of that inquiry could be the Presbytery dismissing the governing body and running the PC directly.

IF one wants to be a part of a denomination than there are duties and responsibilities that come with that.  If one does not want to live up to those then one is free to choose not to be part of the denomination.

THat said, I agree in part with the analysis Steven gives at the end of his post.  Because (in great part) we as a denomination have utterly failed in both Stewardship Education and giving people a sense of mission for the last few generations the viability of our current structure is in real doubt.  ANd the default answer seems to be to downsize only.  While some downsizing of budget is going to be part of the way forward maybe we need to deal with the stewardship issues too????

Hi Matt81,

Operating out of the premise that the congregation "refuses" rather than is unable to pay.  There are a number of disciplinary methods available to Presbytery.  

Presbytery has the right to call a meeting of the Pastoral Charge or Official Board or Church Council (332 h) for a frank discussion on the matter.

Pending that discussion the Presbytery has a number of tools at its disposal which it may use for congregations that are truly refusing to pay their assessments.

Use of these tools may have adverse reactions within the congregation and either increase their reluctance to pay assessments or render the congregation unable to pay their outstanding assessments.

Presbytery can amalgamate, disband, realign, reconstitute or relocate Pastoral Charges within the bounds of Presbytery. (334)

Grace and peace to you.

John

All of the above. The only wrinkle I can add is that in Toronto Conference assessments are made by the Conference on behalf of the presbytery. Non-payment is certainly a reason for a pastoral oversight visit first and then refusal to renew an appointment or permit a call (this has already been useful in bringing congregations onto ADP; no ADP? No JNAC, no JSC and no Call or Appointment). A S.333 Review might asso be in the cards.

We revised our assessment formula three years ago and our assessment went from $12,000 to $8,000/year. I call this the "franchise fee".  

In my Presbytery (Halton), we've recently undertaken to provide our churches, through clergy & presbytery reps, with a clear explanation of how the budget is used faithfully to support our stated mission ( "Strengthening congregations to be Christ for the World") & purpose (Growing Disciples").  What has Presbytery been able to accomplish that helps our local churches become stronger?  Consider what might stop occuring if assessments were reduced - would that be okay?   Communication of this sort is, IMO, often lacking.  I guess that's part of the Stewardship thing.  

Carolla: you are absolutely right!!  Many don't particularly begrudge paying a price, as long as there is a demonstration of value for money. Communication is where most organizations fall down.

The Philanthropy unit at GCO is getting better as this through the "Annual Report", which is worth picking up and looking through!

What role do the Rolls play in assessment?

Congregations/charges can and do sometimes count attendance based on Easter service numbers. Congregations can invite people who have not been in church for decades to get their picture in the "yearbook". They can invite for a photo book back those who come twice a year or even those who left in a huff...

They can maintain people on the rolls who nobody can seem to remember. They can and do count people who are affiliated with a different church or denomination and may have been for over a decade (since 1988 in some instances).

There may be hope that they will return from their exile. There may be simply oversight at the work of maintaining rolls. There may be fear of offending someone or even fear at saying aloud how few there are in reality. There may be a sense that they once were counted as family....

If my wife and I were to tell the tax assessor that our home was worth more and provided proof and reasons why, our assessment would naturally go up.

Looking good is important. It also comes at a cost....

What lengths should you go to? What lengths do you go to?

So true, Stevie. I have seen lots of these things done until they realize that paying this high assessment leaves the minister and Janitor and secretary without a wage.

What criteria do individual congregations use to decide who 'belongs' and who doesn't?  Confirmation at that church?  Many never do that.  Baptism at that church?  Many would be included who have never attended since babyhood.  Completing a form/ceremony declaring that they are members?  Lots of people don't do that but actively participate in church activities. 

kaythecurler,

I am not sure that "belongs" is the right word. IMO

All belong.

If you are part of a community, family, then you simply are... whether you were born and disappeared, whether you stayed until high school, whether you stayed until you got married.....

Belonging is a feeling. Feelings may or may not be facts.

It would be misleading and kind of idiotic to count you as living there in a census if you don't. That is about facts. Our feelings of belonging there do not matter much....

Who are adherents and who are members of a church is a reality and a question about facts, numbers.

I am also for compassion in looking at numbers. I understand a person who has been for a few years now  1/2 an hour away in a retirement home being kept on the rolls.

I cannot say it is the same (to me, anyways) as someone who left almost 25 years ago, said the UCC was evil, and now attends somewhere else.

Yet, I understand the person who stormed out is a relative. I understand you hope they will one day return.

Would you still pay bills for your children when they have not only left home but have perhaps put distance between you, been adopted by others, maybe want nothing to do with you?

The reality is that to do that is budgetary madness.

Is it the same when it is paying for people who do not attend, ever... or those who loudly distance themselves or reject you and those who simply have no interest in you, or have another place they call "home"?

Setting Assessment based on the number on the roll has not been done in any PResbytery I have been in as student or minister.  If any one number is used the # of supporting households is far more relevant.

In my last Presbytery they used a combination of money raised andmoney spent and supporting households over an average of the previous 3 years.  (there was a complex series of ratios used in the calculation).  It pushed folks to ensure their stats forms were done accurately.  Without fail when someone complained it turned out that an amount had been over reported in one of the 3 years.

GordW, I am talking about a church or charge saying the average weekly attendance is well... Christmas or Easter or a number based on how many are on the rolls of their own choice (maybe to look good or feel good or out of fear of how low the numbers may be)

Well and to be honest getting congregations to designate someone to count can be a real challenge.  Asking is easy.  They may agree easily.  But will they do it???????

In our congregation, it's the ushers who do the count. The thing is, they're not always consistent. Some count the congregation but forget to add in the choir, others don't include the children (that really bugs me!).

HAVE CARDS LIKE AT AN AUCTION. HAVE THE GREETERS HAND OUT CARDS. iF AT THE END OF THE SERVICE YOU HAVE 50 CARDS GONE, THAT IS YOUR NUMBER.

Mind you that doesnt count people who come in back doors, side doors, elevator. hahahahahahaha

In the congregation I belonged to for over 30 years, a choir member with a good view of the congregaation did a head count during the children's time.  It was graphed and included in the annual report showing attendance highest during the fall, falling off after Christmas (hockey season), high again for Easter, spiking for baptisms or special Sundays, and dropping to about 1/4 in the summer with the first Sunday in August usually the lowest point.    Average attendance was between 70 and 80. 

For a larger church it might require several people counting - balcony, left side, right side, choir.  Or maybe some estimating.  (pews seating 150, half full, = 75 on the left side)

I don't understand why they don't just go by the yearly income of the congregation with some consideration of expenses. After all, it doesn't really matter how many attend the church, if it's about money, it has to be related to how much is actually coming in.

The formulas vary with each presbytery - some use income, some use expenses, some use identifiable givers, some use membership, I assume.  The formulas are all attempts to equalize the assessments between congregations.  The formulas provide lots of opportunity to fudge the numbers by reporting them in different ways.  The problem with basing a formula on revenues is that it it very easy to hide revenue in legitimate accounting ways.  What gets reported on a congregation's balance sheet as a income from a committee is a bottom line.  For example, if a congregation hosts an annual fall dinner and shows a income from the fall dinner in it's end of year statements that income is a net income of revenue less expenses for the dinner.  In your question that would be a legitimate figure, in my mind, to use in calculating assessments.

 I have recently worked with a congregation that used a variety of funds, reported separately, to manage their balance sheet.  The income from the fall dinner would go into a "fall dinner" fund.  They did not report the income on the congregations statement of revenues and expenses for the year, but in another statement regarding these "special accounts"  The statement of Revenues and expenses would show a substantial ($50000) deficit each year; but the "special accounts" which were used to offset the deficits, maintained a more stable balance.  Some of the expenses, which were identified by designated funds, were passed through the "special accounts".  The result being that the numbers reported to General Council in the yearly statistical forms had absolutely no resemblence to reality.  Those numbers, used to calculate assessments, result in a lower assessment relative to the other congregations in the presbytery.  The congregation has not followed the requirement for an annual audit (now review) of the books; the presbytery has completed an "oversight" visit but, because of other concerns, did not go beyond a cursory review of the congregations finances by expressing concerns over the continuing significant deficits (in fairness the individuals conducting the visit did not have the accounting background to catch the deception in the practice)....and the status quo prevails.

Semi-relevant question from DKS and jmlochead's exchange: Does the United Church specify use of GAAP or other accounting rules or do they just rely on the various courts to make sure their bookkeepers/accountants follow best practices?

I know in UU'ism it's up to each congregation (we've been blessed with having a CA or two in our membership) but we're more congregational than you are.

Mendalla

Calgary Presbytery is moving to a new assessment protocol mixing a fixed part (same for every congregation with a church building) and a variable part based on identifiable givers. Some presbyteries used a model using revenue as a base.  One I think used a weighted model of revenue over the previous 3 years with a decreasing weight given to the older years, something like 20/30/50, to even out the effects of unusual years.

I know, David - my wife is a controller for a construction company and a CGA - it took the two of us a full evening to figure out what the heck was going on with the financial statements in the Annual Report; and I have some (not much, but some) accounting training...

To the person who asked about GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) - no, churches are not expected to follow them.  Most do not.  It is one of the difficulties that comes with the United Church's Manual requirement that the financial statements be audited because there are not standard auditing procedures for non-profits and often the reporting we are doing is no where near the reporting a publicly traded company is required to do.  For example, I'd be willing to bet there are few congregations in the denomination that have a truly accurate idea of the true value of their buildings and capital assets; whereas most companies need to spend considerable time dealing with those things.

There is a Financial Handbook for Congregations, but as my interest is solely with the content in Chapter 4, I'm afraid I'm not able to speak to the requirements for financial reporting for congregations.

The fact that most congregations have volunteers in the treasurer role is another difficulty; it's very hard to insist on GAAP standards when volunteers are not trained or experienced with that level of reporting.

The Financial Handbook is posted on the United Church's website in a pdf file, and is downloadable and searchable:http://www.united-church.ca/files/handbooks/financial.pdf

Other useful Congregational Finance information is posted: http://www.united-church.ca/local/congfin

I"m finding it quite curious to read that various formulas are used to determine the assessments - I'd imagined (wrongly!) there would be consistency with this.  I keep learning more about our chuch, the longer I'm on this valuable website!

I found that fascinating too.  Is there a particular reason that there isn't a standard method used?  To me it would just make more sense to have all congregations listing their income and expences in the same way.  Income could be broken down into relevant categories (offerings, fundraising events, interest, other donations etc) and expenses could be written as salaries,  fundraising supplies, loan payments, etc. as needed.

It is another example of where teh UCCan is not centralized.  There are national statistics forms that all fill in, but the forms themselves confuse some people and so the information is not consistent (and then there are those who find ways to hide information)

What an odd thing to do.  Isn't the main point of financial information to be able to easily and consistently determine where money comes from and how it gets spent?  Trying to hide info just leaves people confused and needing to ask difficult questions.

If you think that is bad, try reading the T3010's on the CRA wedb site.

There are pros and cons to both discussions.  We are not centralized in part because we are protestant with a strong suspicion and distrust of centralized power and authority.  We could go back to the 1500's and the animosity towards the powers of the Roman Catholic Church and the pope; we could look to the reformers in Switzerland and the development of the counciliary systems of governance that we use as a denomination today; we could look to 1925 and the recognition that the congregations/pastoral charges are the foundational organizational unit of the denomination for the particular reasons a standard method is not used across the denomination.  Each Presbytery has the authority to set the assessment and the method by which the assessment is calculated; that is the reason there is not a standard method of calculation used...

I thought of this thread as we discussed presbytery assessments and conference allotments tonight at our presbytery meeting.

In the recent restructuring our presbyteries turned that responsibility over to the Conference, who set the budget for each presbytery and calculate the assessment based on a conference-wide formula. Our assessment went tom $12,000/year to $8,000/year.

I don’t want to derail this thread – as some assessments  use membership for calculation…..and I guess this is more of a question for all of us here…

Membership/Adherents…yes the question never goes away.   

For membership we use the standard rules to apply to someone who is a member – baptism, confirmation etc…..however, due to many folks not bothering to remove themselves from the roles etc after moving (or for whatever reason) we came up with a 1.00 a year suggestion.  For example, as long as you give $1.00 a year (and are active in the church community) you are considered an active member.  If for some reason people can’t give $1.00 or can’t participate in church/church activities – exceptions apply.

In the manual it states that an adherent must be an active giving member of the church (or something like that) see applied that to membership as well.

I am not saying this is right or wrong…..just an approach – now, whenever we want a current membership role we run off a list from our accounting software which tracks giving’s etc….