Riverside: New Directions/Fiscal Management

Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 10:49 am
Subject: Letter to the RSD Church Council re: next steps
Dear Council members,

On May 25, 2009 I met with Jean Schmidt informally to talk about Riverside. Over the course of a long conversation, Jean asked me about my recommendations for next steps for the church. Given the recent announcements that the Council is exploring appropriate next steps, I am writing to reiterate the core suggestions I made to Jean back in May.

As I told Jean, the most fundamental issue I see is that there is a lack of understanding and focus about our mission. Having worked for various for-profit and non-profit corporations, I have observed that no organization can run well unless a) the mission is clearly articulated and b) the leadership is clear about what the mission means. Once those two things are clear, every leadership decision can be measured against a clear standard. In Riverside's case, our mission is elegantly stated focusing on "inter-racial, inter-denominational, and international worship" and "social justice ministry."

In the past year, it has become evident that despite the elegant simplicity of this mission statement, there is a lack of consensus and understanding about what it means. All leadership and action must flow from the mission. So the most important step I suggested to Jean is that the Council should explore (using whatever documentation exists since the creation of the corporation) the meaning of the mission. All meaningful leadership decisions will be clear when this is understood.

For example, "inter" means "between, among, reciprocal, carried on between, shared by two or more, etc." Understanding what this prefix means leads to clear leadership directions for everything including our theology, worship style, music, social justice efforts, and fiscal expenditures. For example, if "inter-denominational" means inclusive and shared worship among all denominations, then this places clear limits on the denominational affiliations and theological views of those we hire to lead us as clergy. While our worship can and must include and welcome people of all denominations, we cannot legally effectuate our mission if we hire clergy whose theological views preclude or place any limits on true "inter-denominational" theology. For example, since Riverside has led the vanguard in welcoming openly gay members and clergy, we cannot fulfill our mission by hiring clergy whose denominational affiliations prohibit them from sanctifying gay unions. We can welcome them to worship with us, because our theological umbrella is without limits, but we cannot use our money to hire them to lead us, because narrower theologies conflict with our inter-denominational mission.

Similarly, "inter-racial" means inclusive and equal between people of all races and ethnicities. We cannot fulfill our mission if we use our money, choose worship styles, or hire clergy who cannot honor all forms of worship, honor all people as individuals, and include all people equally as children of God. We can welcome all individuals with narrower views in our community, but we cannot limit the effectuation of our mission by hiring people with narrow views of worship and judgments about people based on the color of their skin because, as I wrote Billy Jones and this Council in August 2008, such leadership violates our mission and conflicts with God's scriptures and Christ's ministry and teaching.

Even decisions about spending flow naturally from a clear understanding of mission. We have a beautiful edifice. But it is fantastically expensive to maintain. The Council has dipped into and diminished our endowment for many years now, and this threatens the continued fiscal stability of the church. Understanding our social justice mission includes making the decision of whether our ministry should spend for social justice, or building maintenance. As one who loves our edifice, it would indeed be painful and sad to leave it. However, our mission is for social justice. Our spending, from how much we spend for heat, air conditioning, oil, and repointing, must flow directly from our mission. If a clear understanding of our mission leads to the decision that fulfillment of our mission requires abandoning our edifice, then we will be effectuating our mission. The decisions for every aspect of spending flow from the mission. And make no mistake, gorgeous as she is, our building is not God's home. God is without limits, and this building is a mere transitory reflection of a tiny part of His Glory.

Choosing social justice projects must similarly flow from an understanding of our "inter-racial, inter-denominational, and inter-national" mission. It is clear that we must fund and act to minister to people of all races, in all faith traditions, in all nations. There is dire need of many types all around us, and around the globe. Decisions about how to focus our efforts and spend our money must in each case be determined in accordance with our mission. We cannot focus only on one type of justice for one demographic of people in one geographical location. We are called to minister to all in need. And that need is truly overwhelming.

We also need to be clear about our legal and denominational affiliations. Certainly, it is not necessary that we only hire members of the ABC or UCC. But it is legally mandated that we only hire people whose training, denominational affiliations, and theologies fully embrace the theological embracing of our two affiliations, and our extremely widely-encompassing theological mission.

These are only a few examples, but from my own professional experience, I truly believe that if the Council focuses effort on understanding the mission, then the appropriate directions for spending, worship style, hiring, music, social justice ministries, and all other leadership decisions will be appropriately framed by the simple question, "Do this choice fulfill or violate our mission?" It really is that simple.

Finally, it has come to my attention that there have been efforts to stop fundraising efforts for Project People, a non-profit affiliated with Riverside that serves needy children in South Africa. Ministry to needy children anywhere in the world is clearly part of our social justice and inter-racial mission, and was a core part of Christ's ministry. Efforts to stop anyone from raising money to help those in genuine need are an affront to God's teaching, Christ's ministry, and Riverside's mission. In the past year, there has been a lot of bullying and silencing from the pulpit and the Council. We have descended to a level of leadership where a few loud school-yard type bullies silence and threaten important social justice actions and ministries. We need to stop allowing bullies to run the playground. We need leadership. And, as Bob preached on August 9, that leadership does not come from any of us, or from our edifice. It comes from Christ. The Council must take steps to make it clear that every effort to help those in real need by anyone who is a member of or visitor to our church is something we applaud, welcome, and encourage. Make no mistake: Anyone who works to stop ministry to those in need is working against our mission and against Christ's teaching. It is that simple. This Council must speak loudly and quickly on this matter. We cannot tolerate efforts to stop Christ's ministry to those in need. There is no time to placate bullies. The need around us is too dire.

I am familiar with the burdens and challenges of leadership. I hope that these suggestions may provide helpful directions for your important work in reinvigorating our mission, our reputation, and our effectiveness in Christ's ministry to those in true need.

With love and prayer for the effectuation of our mission and God's promise for all human souls,

Jennifer Hoult, J.D.

--------------

I was contacted by an attendee at Don Bickford’s Capital Portion Subcommittee of the Budget and Planning Committee on August 28, 2009. Cambridge Assoc. advised that meeting that Riverside should not be drawing more than $6,700,000 a year from the endowment. It appears that the past year’s budget withdrew $6,275,000 in excess of their recommendation.

The numbers reported were as follows:

12,975,000 actually withdrawn for Capital and Operating Budgets
- 6,700,000 Cambridge Associates’ recommended prudent annual endowment withdrawal
$6,275,000 amount drawn in excess of Cambridge Associates’ recommendation

Note that back in May 2009, prior to a substantial decline in the market value of the endowment, in a written report to the Riverside Church, Cambridge Assoc. wrote:
"Riverside should redefine the purpose of the endowment to best fit the needs of the Church and thus, clarify the current spending rule. Based on the current asset allocation of the portfolio, the portfolio is expected to generate an average annual real return of 5.3% over the long-term. As a rule, total spending should be set below this percentage in order to preserve and grow the base of the endowment. Total spending for 2009 (based on operational and capital needs) is estimated to be approximately 11.3% of the endowment value."

The Cambridge Associates report stated:
"At the current projected spending level, the Church risks eroding the endowment by approximately 42% in 3 years and completely liquidating the endowment in less than 10 years."