Good advice, dks

I was under the understanding this was already the case.  We have been acting that way for a while now (even pushing one congregation that was, reluctant, before we would approve their JNAC and declare a vacancy)

It has been let slide in some presbyteries, especially in some unnamed conferences. Now it's mandatory enforcement of the terms of call, settlement or appointment.

Yes, let's make sure that every congregation has its payroll disrupted equally.

I have yet to have one correct paycheque since we went on the UCC system in January. Last month they refused to send us our pay stubs.

I rear ya, RevJames . . . we've had a few issues too . . . and have not been very successful in rectifying them . . . either with ADP or UCC.  We've been on it for quite a few years now.

We've had absolutely no problems with payroll since going on the system, and I love the convenience of it. So it's not "every" congregation. I've actually heard from no one in Niagara Presbytery who has had a problem.

Perhaps now would be a good time to reintroduce the vows of poverty?

The only issue we have had (once they finally got our paperwork done, there was a bit of a backlog) is that their communication is less than optimal.

If you are having problems every month are you sure the contact at your end is not miscommunicating the information?  Or confirming that they have the same numbers written down, that the call has actually be communicated clearly.  

It seems to be working fine for us but, whether or not it works well isn't really my issue. I still object to contracting this work out and to a US affiliate. This endorses the corporate model/structure when we could be leading the way in doing things differently.

We had a lot of struggles with this in our congregation. Our treasurer spent a lot of time on the phone with the powers that be trying to figure it out. We are a long way from Toronto, and I suspect that was part of the issue. We are a small congregation with limited funds........I know that is not unique.......

Contact Lee Corlett at National Office. She's the go-to person on this. Raise hell.

ADP is a global company with a Canadian office. I am told that several of the senior managers are members of the United Church of Canada. One attends Glen Abbey United Church in Mississauga. And object all you want. You aren't the person who has had to go beg the church treasurer for your paycheque and it's already three days late.

By All Means! If you are having difficulty with the pastoral charge payroll service, please do contact Lee at 1-800-268-3781, x3118.

Please also keep in mind: the treasurer at the pastoral charge, NOT anyone at the General Council Office, is running the payroll for you.  If your address is incorrect; your deductions are wonky; your T4 is late, PLEASE ask your treasurer to follow up with ADP first. 

The Human Resources Unit is happy to help and you can call us at 1-800-268-3781, x3161.

No, one of our repeated complaints with ADP is that their Level 1 CSR's don't know and don't understand the church and how we do things. And they don't seem to be able to improve, either. That has been our continual feedback to ADP in every customer survey they have offered.

Martha, the largest frustration I am hearing is that even then these things are correct and the submitted data is accurate, errors still occur. And the local treasurer is blamed by ADP for the error. This is and will be a very complex project with many variables. I have heard experienced treasurers get very frustrated with ADP.

As I used to be the person who did payroll in a UC in which I worked (the cheques, with the help of a computer program, were done correctly and on time), I understand what you are saying. However, I don't object to have a centralized payroll and never have but I do object to a "global company" doing the work.

If part of what we respond to in the world is the massive dehumanization that results in a loss of quality of life as an outcome of corporatism, it seems to me that we could model something different. Why couldn't an internal payroll department have been created? We all pay for the service -- couldn't "we" have hired qualified, knowledgeable people to do this kind of work within the UCC? Since there are already people doing the work and there is existing computer software to do it, what would have been wrong with that?

We tried that with the United Church Pension and Group Insurance Plan in the 1990's. After spending millions of dollars and trying to develop the program for almost a decade, we finally realized that it just wasn't possible on a scale of 3000 members in every province with different regulations. Which is why we outsourced it. Same with payroll. Too many variables. And as ADP (and others) were already doing it, it made zero sense in terms of use of scarce resources to reinvent the wheel. We had outgrown every pastoral charge doing their own payroll. And we also needed the inforamtion. So we changed.

Even if I was to accept the comments about internal payroll, there are many Canadian companies that do this work, that aren't part of a global corporate structure.

I'm not clear on the comment about "we also needed the information". Can you elaborate?

AS part of the ongoing discussions about clergy compensation in the present and the future there was a need to get accurate information about what is currently happening in this area.  Part of the added benefit of a centralized payroll is that all the inofrmation will be much more easily accessible in a much more standardized format (in theory at least)

And ADP not only has poor communitcation (like not actually explaining why service charges are different one month) but the person on the phone argues when corrected.  Last year I had to explain the Group Insurance deductions three times in one phone call as the caller was insisting that the Pensioner Premium Support amount was included in the optional health/dental coverage (I took that call because they had already convinced the treasurer she was wrong).  Afterward the treasurer and I wondered how many people would have incorect deductions that month...  All our problems have been communication issues and there have been months, epecially just after we went "live" when the hoped for time-saving was not evident to the treasurer.

I think, like many things in Canada, the payroll plan may have an added cost for some, for the benefit of all.

Example:

a) there are some ministers whose treasurers pay them wrong, and then there are challenges around corrections.  I'm betting the majority pay ministers correctly, but don't know that

b) there are some ministers whose treasurers / churches don't pay them on time.  I am betting the majority do, but, i don't know that

c) there are some minsiters whose treasuers have doen their pension plan calc's wrong...or other benefits...again, probably in the minority

So, if centralizing payroll ensures that ministers are not going to be held hostage by their church/treasuer, then, yeah, it should be a given.

RE doing it in house....if yo want something that allows input and payment distribution across international rules/regulations, then you better work with a global company.  (My understanding is that we have churches affiliated with us in Bermuda...also, not sure what happens with those on international assignment).

Payroll is actually not a simple process, though you would think it was.  There is, though a company close to me that does centralized payroll meeting this kind of need, and, is i think, still Canadian owned.  

Guess, the question Mo5 is a wider one....why do we presume global is bad and canadian is good.    that's probably a different thread..

The process was put out to tender, I understand. ADP won the tender. Under Canadian law (NAFTA, for one, I think) we are not allowed to restrict bids to companies who are Canadian only. The idea that it should go only to a Canadian company is a non-starter in this matter.

That's right. We used electronic Funds Transfer for payroll at zero cost at our local credit union. Now it costs us. But in the bigger picture, we all win.

There are Canadian payroll companies that aren't global corporations. And, I'm not assuming global is bad (which it so often is) so much as I'm wondering how we can promote local autonomy and development elsewhere in the world as part of a strategy to establish healthy communities when we aren't following that model.

A couple of things I wonder about here - one, what were the reasons for putting the payroll system up for tender? Often, the tender process is solely about getting the job done for the cheapest price, regardless of other considerations. Since the UCC isn't a government agency, I don't think we were obligated to put the contract out for tender. However, perhaps there are rules within the UCC -- do you know, DKS?

Also, I want to check into the statement about not being allowed, under NAFTA, to restrict bids to Canadian companies. I've heard that there are provisions for local hire under NAFTA so want to investigage this further. Also, are you certain this applies to the private sector as opposed to government?

wow, if we didn't put it out for bid, as part of sourcing, then I would question our ethics and processes.   Payroll is NOT the churches key deliverable, rather it is an operational manner.  Of course, it, like all operations must meet our church ethics.

Sorry. No sale. It makes good stewardship sense and excellent policy governance to tender such matters, or at least invite bids to an RFP. If you want arguments to support your particular bias, you will have to find them elsewhere. Such questions are nothing but a sign of distrust, which goes far beyond any rational basis. This is what it is and we live with it. If you object, my feeling is "Tough. You haven't ever had to go beg a church treasurer for your paycheck". I have. And I trust our National Office enough to do the right thing. Distrust is one of the dysfuctions we have in the United Church.

As it doesn't matter, I'm not going to even try to answer. It is what it is.

Well said.

That's something of an over-reaction. I've already made it clear that I don't object to a national payroll system but that I did not, and still do not, understand the rationale for "going global". I believe there are legitimate reasons to be cautious of that, given their role in the wealth imbalance around the world.

That doesn't make sense to me -- I feel like I've hit a nerve rather than asked for clarification. What does anything matter, and why have a discussion board then? It is what it is, after all.

Pinga, I didn't mean that we couldn't put it out for bid at all but that it doesn't necessarily have to be a fully open tender. There are lots of organizations that invite bids on an individual basis from contractors/companies that operate in a manner consistent with their value system. That can range from environmental concerns, support for the co-operative movement, small business, women operators, union shop, etc. I don't see how that puts our ethics and processes in question, in fact, I think it reinforces them if the invitations for bids are made to those contractors/companies that operate in a manner consistent with what we preach.

Agreed, that you can do.....m05, but there is a fine line.   We can't presume that companies because they are global treat their employees unethically, or because they aren't...do.

Example:  I once was quite involved as a customer with the company PeopleSoft.  They were a global software house providing ERP solutions.  I can tell you that overall, they were amazing in how affirming they were.   They lived it and showed it in how they related.  Sure, there were growing pains as they exploded in size, and eventually were taken over in a  hostile takeover by Oracle, but....they were a good solid company to work with.   I compare that to some of the smaller houses, who were less inclusive.

Any company or organization which acted in that manner could easily be accused of bias and potential conflict of interest in its tendering process. Having been a part of the board of a non-profit agency funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health, I can say with some conviction that writing an RFP or tendering in an exclusive manner like that would get you a very nasty visit and serious questions from the government auditors for violating the tendering rules. The only way you can get around it is by finding that there is only a sole provider for the good or service.  I have also seen United Church agencies tender in that manner you describe and discover huge levels of waste and potential fraud afterward.

DKS, you can put specifics; however, there are likely restrictions on what you can & cannot do.

I do not know the various regulations as I am not involved in sourcing. 

An example one that is legitmate is that we will not participate with companies that expect bribes...even if bribing is normal practices for the area.

I recognize that's true in government agencies and will take your word for it that it's true of NGOs. However, I don't believe it's true in this situation.

As I said, I don't believe the first. With regard to the latter, when we pay money out of donations made to the church for services, is not the profit mechanism kind of a waste? As well, yes, these processes need to be conducted appropriately and I'm not arguing that poor, local processes are preferable to good global ones but I don't think those are the only options.

I wonder how this would be viewed if our UCs who wish to serve fairtrade or fairly traded, locally-grown, bird-friendly coffee were told that they had to open the tender and then were told that it was in the best interests of our UCs (cheaper, more efficient, etc) that Nestle had won the bid with their "organic" coffee line. I'm not saying that Nestle and ADP are equivalent, but rather am wondering how far this position holds.

Understood...and hence, the lines around purchase of service

I did some googling, and found an example from a purchasing policy: 

To maintain a consistent and fair policy toward the entire business community, while maximizing the opportunity for small business participation.

To read what changes can be forced by large scale companies that have the $$$ to actually do supplier audits, and enforce what they believe in...check out Apple's site:

http://www.apple.com/procurement/

Having just compelted a board review of purchsasing policy for the said organization, I can assure you it is very much "so".

Those are small consumption decisions, not large policy differences. If a church wants to make it a policy decision, then that is their choice. In most cases, the amount of coffee consumed by a church in a year is insignificant. In the case of a payroll service, it is significant.

DKS, this is what I was asking upthread -- what exactly are the UCC "rules" around this kind of decision? If you say it's "so", where can one find that information?

pinga's example of Princeton was the kind of thing I am talking about - their webpage on this states:

"Purchasing endorses the University's commitment to provide support for small and local business concerns of all types, including: small businesses, local Princeton-area businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, women-owned small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, service disabled veteran owned small businesses, and small businesses located in historically underutilized business zones."

And, even if the "amount of coffee consumed by a church in a year is insignificant", the principle remains the same, does it not? Do our values change depending on the amount of money involved or is there something else at play that I don't understand?

What kind of theological sense does it make?

At Nas'is United, in Fredericton, we are experiencing a guided congregational transformation. Just now we are transitioning an appointment position to a call position. At a key moment we receive a communication from our covenant partners at Presbytery. The communique states that no appointment or call will be processed until there is compliance with mandatory enrollment with ADP. This struck me as rather coercive - conform or pay the penalty!

Forgive me for any offense but the word mandatory seems strangely discordant with the gospel we confess. The image of Jews in Poland wearing mandatory yellow insignia, or Rosa Parks subject to mandatory constraint on her choice of seat riding the public transit. The rubrics of control.

 GeoFee, since the days of United Online I've generally enjoyed your thoughtful contributions to discussion boards, however ...

With all due respect, to compare congregations being required to process payroll through ADP to either the Jews wearing yellow stars in Poland or blacks being required to sit at the back of the bus in the South isn't much less ridiculous than a Vatican preacher comparing the bad press the current Catholic hierarchy is getting to persecution of the Jews.

If we're going to go the way of a payroll system, quite frankly, it must be mandatory. (I admittedly say this as one who is currently a Presbytery Pastoral Relations Chair, and therefore who has some responsibility for enforcing this directive.) If we're going to avoid being "coercive" - ie, if the thing is going to be voluntary - that begs a question: who gets to decide when it is or isn't implemented? Would it be the Pastoral Charges who say that everything is fantastic and we don't need this system that's going to cost us money, or would it be the minister whose deductions are done wrong, whose paycheques are sometimes late or sometimes bounce, whose T4s aren't done on time, or whose Treasurer just doesn't like him or her and makes his or her life miserable? (Although I've been fortunate to have had excellent Treasurers in my 16 years, I've heard accounts of all those situations.) What if there's a disagreement - the Pastoral Charge says things are great but the minister says there are problems? We set up conflict by making it voluntary. If one part of the body suffers, then the whole body suffers, and the whole body must work together for the body to work properly. Thus, in my view - the mandatory ADP. If we're going to have it, we all have to have it. 

Perhaps I was unclear. It is the appearing of the word mandatory in our common discourse that troubles me. The two examples from our common history illustrate my reasons for critical concern.  In both cases the at large community of faith failed to notice or protest the systemic oppression of a people. Saying this I speak about their suffering only. Looking to their experience I see clearly the need for vigilance. Lest we too find our freedom bound by prescriptions considered mandatory with a view to security and efficiency. 

Gratitude for your submission of the text, citing it as an authoritative source.

Fully in agreement with the implications of this text, I have rooted reservation concerning the adopted strategy. It seems to me an evasion of covenanted discipline as determined by the appropriate sections of the Basis of Union. Further, that the prescriptions of the Basis of Union are in substantial agreement with the evangelical text and tradition. Here is Matthew on topic:

Fully aware of the antiquity problems, we may yet notice that the basic pattern is reflected in the Basis of Union. Carefully reading the pertinent sections we find that the emergence of conflict is anticipated and measures for remedy outlined. I am owed money by the pastoral charge and that money is not forthcoming in a timely manner. The person or persons responsible crossed a covenanted boundary at my expense. We have the terms on record at the various levels of accountability. Those terms indicate that I have resort to the congregation's ministry and personnel committee. With them I may approach the person or persons breaching our covenanted relationship. This in the hope of remedy and the restoration of covenant loyalty.

It is possible that the congregation's ministry and personnel is not able to mediate resolution. The Basis of Union is aware and gives us direction. The matter is to be represented to the Presbytery ministry and personnel committee. On discovery of the facts, representation from the Presbytery exercises its jurisdiction in the hope of achieving a clear resolution. Should that fail the Basis of Union directs us to a comprehensive review of the congregation - with prescriptions for remedy.

A covenanted relationship entails mutual regard. This fails where the issue of timely pay arises. Further, the process for resolution prescribed by the Basis of Union allows us to catch such incidents in the bud, only if the process is followed faithfully. Resort to a for hire third party involves us in dodging the manifest failure of our court structures and processes.

A busy set of days now advancing towards culmination. I will find and post a letter written following a series of conversations with the congregation's treasurer. The letter expresses my reasons for calling the plan into question.

This is God's good night and tomorrow God's glad day!

George, that's just plain offensive. No matter what theological gymnastics you perform, the result will be the same. No appointment unless you are part of the centralized payroll. Go read the words of the appointment form. It's all there in covenant language.

No need to. Our Pastor is paid directly by the congregation. See how simple that makes it.

For those who may not realize, Jae does not attend a United Church, whereas this thread is about United Church policy

This is true.

This was not stated in the initial post of this thread.

Yeah, you know, the ones that all Pagans are sworn to.

Please. Your linking of A PAYROLL SYSTEM with the historic oppression of blacks in the US and genocide of Jews is utterly ridiculous and highly offensive. Have you lost your mind?

I apologize for the lack of clarity which has given occasion for your response. I do not intend to link the payroll system with any historic oppression. Rather, I notice that the word mandatory occurs in various contexts, offering two examples. However poorly expressed I go on to suggest that the introduction of mandatory rubrics indicates the emergence of a trajectory by which consequences may be brought to bear on that which is to come with the passing of time. You are well aware that the history of faith includes repeated institutional deviation and costly consequence. Perhaps you imagine that our enlightened liberal world view has overcome this propensity for the encroachment of authoritarian bias?

It is the concept embodied in the word mandatory that troubles me. Being born into the liberty of Christ I can find no good ground for resort to rubrics of conformity. Further, I am of the opinion that mandatory participation in the payroll plan side-steps the process for conflict resolutions spelled out in the Basis of Union and authorized by reference to Scripture.

It concerns me at least a little that in your reply you speak with the pejorative voice, dismissing my perspective rather than offering me reasons to illuminate the error you take to be operative in my position.

GC has ratified mandatory participation. This means I must conform or accept the consequence. It does not mean I must forsake my conviction concerning such strategies. Nor does it mean I must refrain from the public expression of those convictions.

I wonder David, what constitutes the offence? That I disagree with the adopted polity?

Also not at all sure what you mean by "theological gymnastics"? Are you suggesting that my linkage of the steps for resolution of conflict in a covenant relationship, given in the Basis of Union and authorized by reference to Scripture, is somehow inappropriate to the discourse we share as persons baptized into the life of Christ?

OR GC has changed the basic terms of covenant, in (as has been said) the realisation that we are about the health of the whole body.

Unless you also see minimum salary/housing/travel/ sabbatical/vacation/study allowance/study time as equally difficult to reconcile with a covenant relationship your arguement starts to fall.

well, and definition of requirements for graduation, or ordination, etc, etc.

There are decisions which are deemed mandatory for the good of the whole.

I am wondering, if for example, there are requirements for insurance on the building.

Indeed! You pose the pertinent question and so offer a welcome contrast to the dismissive remarks expressed by some persons above.

Briefly....I do find all of the items you note difficult in light of the scripture and will work on an elaboration of that difficulty in the next phase of my experience with the United Church. This past week I resigned my position with the congregation at Nashwaaksis United. It is possible, God knows,  that I will not again enter into a paid accountable relationship with the United Church of Canada.