This is my fourth and final report of my term as your Financial Advisor. I have been honored and pleased to serve our Association in this way -- this is a great office, unique in many ways among charitable and religious institutions. This has been a special year, and I’m going to set the scene with a little reading from James Carroll:
“I bought a new suit a couple of days ago, and I’d like to tell you about the strange thing that happened. I had put the suit on and stepped into the store’s three-walled mirror. I was looking straight ahead at the cut of the cloth and the way it hung in front and whether the trousers fit. When I turned to look at the side view I was suddenly and for a flash, stunned to see not me, but a stranger standing there in a new olive suit. He had a funny-shaped head and he needed a haircut and his shoes had worn-down heels. It was me. But it was a me I hadn’t seen before and there was a second of almost terror at being confronted by someone staring away who was me. I wanted to touch him, this stranger, but there was glass and more, that held me back. I wanted to speak to him, but there were no words. The feeling lasted for only a fraction of a second and it was gone.
Thinking about it since, I have realized that such a moment of fear and of yearning was not unfamiliar to me. I have bumped into the stranger before. In some way, I am bumping into him now as I write these words for you: perhaps you are bumping into a stranger of your own. We are strangers to each other because we are strangers to ourselves.”
It has occurred to me from time to time that this Association may be a stranger to itself in many ways -- and that if we looked at ourselves in that three-walled mirror -- glancing to look at the side view -- we might see a stranger we wanted to touch and speak to -- but something holds us back.
In part, that something is a fear about having to face confusion over our institutional identity; a fear of having to face uncertainty about the depth of our commitment; a fear of having to face the question of the effectiveness with which we are living our institutional life.
When we as a body look into a mirror -- are we seeing ourselves honestly and truly as we are? Are we seeing two personalities struggling toward reconciliation: the prophetic and the institutional servant? Are we seeing a stranger, an institution we do not even know, an institution that has changed, and with which we have not changed?
Or are we seeing a fantasy, an organization we would like to believe exists, doing things we would like to believe it is doing, having an impact we would like to believe it has?
I’m only going to look in the mirror as to financial and planning matters. As you proceed through this week and see our association from many angles, you may reflect on whether you are at one with the Association, or are seeing a stranger in any respect.
As we look in the mirror at our Association’s financial condition, we can appropriately feel a sense of confidence. The President taking office on June 22 will head an Association in better financial condition than any former President found. Our assets are greater, our sources of funds more secure, and with good management....
Showing posts with label 1984-Atlanta. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1984-Atlanta. Show all posts
Atlanta II
As we try to peer through the looking glass into the future, we should know that it will not be easy. I shall make no attempt to predict the future this evening. But I am going to predict a little of the present. I haven’t got my tenses mixed, talking about predicting the present. The present you know is always reflected in the future.
We have laid some important foundations in the past four years on which we shall inevitably build in the next four. Now what does all of this have to do with mirrors -- and strangers who look just like us?
Just one week ago yesterday, David Osborne preached a sermon at the service transferring the first fund to the UUA. He talked about making choices and making history -- and he quoted someone whose name escapes me but whose words do not -- luck is the residue of design. Whose design?
Can we look in the mirror in our newly acquired three piece financial self-sufficiency and say we did it? No. It was Arthur Veatch who found the reserves under the earth. Caroline Veatch who left the rights to the North Shore Church, probably with no idea of their ultimate value.
Providence in some form...and the Congregation of the North Shore Church. Not us. Keep that in mind as you look yourself in the eye in the mirror. We haven’t done all that well by ourselves. We’re often quick to know how we want to apply our funds.
But can we reconcile our image of ourselves as a caring, committed supportive denomination with what we have actually done in supporting our Association? You can do something about that this week, you know. In a sense, if we don’t give that support, much of the rest of what we do here this week, may be sound and fury -- signifying a show.
Do we realize that -- as magnificent and munificent as the Plandome gift is -- we could match it if each adult member of our churches and fellowships gave only $145?
This week we will apply our enormous level of energy to the work, the worship, the good fellowship and the campaigning. Can we reconcile our image of ourselves at that pitch of energy, with the stranger in the mirror who is not making an effort of similar energy, to support and augment our Annual Program Fund.
Let me also remind you that in the coming fiscal year, the supported share per capita gift by the congregations to the annual Program fund increases, until in the 1988-89 year, it will reach $20. Will you be with it when it gets there?
I have said before, membership in this Association is not a spectator sport. This is a needed standard and we all need to support it when we get back to the real world.
We have laid some important foundations in the past four years on which we shall inevitably build in the next four. Now what does all of this have to do with mirrors -- and strangers who look just like us?
Just one week ago yesterday, David Osborne preached a sermon at the service transferring the first fund to the UUA. He talked about making choices and making history -- and he quoted someone whose name escapes me but whose words do not -- luck is the residue of design. Whose design?
Can we look in the mirror in our newly acquired three piece financial self-sufficiency and say we did it? No. It was Arthur Veatch who found the reserves under the earth. Caroline Veatch who left the rights to the North Shore Church, probably with no idea of their ultimate value.
Providence in some form...and the Congregation of the North Shore Church. Not us. Keep that in mind as you look yourself in the eye in the mirror. We haven’t done all that well by ourselves. We’re often quick to know how we want to apply our funds.
But can we reconcile our image of ourselves as a caring, committed supportive denomination with what we have actually done in supporting our Association? You can do something about that this week, you know. In a sense, if we don’t give that support, much of the rest of what we do here this week, may be sound and fury -- signifying a show.
Do we realize that -- as magnificent and munificent as the Plandome gift is -- we could match it if each adult member of our churches and fellowships gave only $145?
This week we will apply our enormous level of energy to the work, the worship, the good fellowship and the campaigning. Can we reconcile our image of ourselves at that pitch of energy, with the stranger in the mirror who is not making an effort of similar energy, to support and augment our Annual Program Fund.
Let me also remind you that in the coming fiscal year, the supported share per capita gift by the congregations to the annual Program fund increases, until in the 1988-89 year, it will reach $20. Will you be with it when it gets there?
I have said before, membership in this Association is not a spectator sport. This is a needed standard and we all need to support it when we get back to the real world.
Atlanta III
We look with pride at our denominational publishing enterprise, The Beacon Press. And we should. Seven years ago on this occasion, we had an intensive debate about the future of Beacon Press. Whether we could afford to continue it -- whether we could afford not to.
We did continue it, albeit on a somewhat reduced scale, but we should be honest with ourselves as to the Press’s position. Do we believe we have taken this step simply, directly and that nothing but good will come of it? We know that nothing worth doing is that easy.
Two developments having long-term significance for the Beacon Press have taken place in the past two years. As most will remember, the Press, though it has a distinguished history in publishing, has had a financial history of great concern to the Association. We have tended to have expectations of it as if it were a business, and not a program of the Association. Beacon has, in fact, required annual subsidization to keep going. This subsidy over the past seven years since the Press was reorganized in 1978, has averaged $52,000. If we were to analogize Beacon to a university press, however, this level of subsidy support would not be out of line.
The two developments are:
1. A consultant with major experience in the economics of publishing companies and long exposure to the industry was retained to do a study of the operations of the Press, and to prepare recommendations for a program to put it on a sound fiscal basis. That report has been completed; it makes sense; it is doable. All it requires is additional capital to enable the press to increase its operations to a level at which it can hope more effectively to compete with other small presses.
2. Visions for Growth has earmarked $500,000 of its total objective for additional capital for Beacon.
As funds become available from payments of pledges to Visions for Growth, and we can implement the program, we may be able to nourish hope for not only a more successful, but a more solvent Beacon Press.
On to investment issues: There was a rumble in South Africa which was echoing at 25: the rumble was apartheid -- actually a world wide concern with racism. This concern found focus in the United States with attempts to put pressure on American corporations to modify personnel policies to eliminate discriminatory practices in the workplace.
Those individuals and organizations in the not-for-profit sector maintained a level of pressure on shareholder relations officials and their seniors. Their objective was adoption of new policies and practices which would lead to equal treatment for all races, particularly the black majority in South Africa.
What we have here in another example of the conflict often faced by those in leadership positions in religious organizations -- and all of us in this room qualify on that ground. We are always engaged in a struggle to reconcile our image of ourselves as prophetic and our image of ourselves as institutional servants.
But let me walk you through our process.
We did continue it, albeit on a somewhat reduced scale, but we should be honest with ourselves as to the Press’s position. Do we believe we have taken this step simply, directly and that nothing but good will come of it? We know that nothing worth doing is that easy.
Two developments having long-term significance for the Beacon Press have taken place in the past two years. As most will remember, the Press, though it has a distinguished history in publishing, has had a financial history of great concern to the Association. We have tended to have expectations of it as if it were a business, and not a program of the Association. Beacon has, in fact, required annual subsidization to keep going. This subsidy over the past seven years since the Press was reorganized in 1978, has averaged $52,000. If we were to analogize Beacon to a university press, however, this level of subsidy support would not be out of line.
The two developments are:
1. A consultant with major experience in the economics of publishing companies and long exposure to the industry was retained to do a study of the operations of the Press, and to prepare recommendations for a program to put it on a sound fiscal basis. That report has been completed; it makes sense; it is doable. All it requires is additional capital to enable the press to increase its operations to a level at which it can hope more effectively to compete with other small presses.
2. Visions for Growth has earmarked $500,000 of its total objective for additional capital for Beacon.
As funds become available from payments of pledges to Visions for Growth, and we can implement the program, we may be able to nourish hope for not only a more successful, but a more solvent Beacon Press.
On to investment issues: There was a rumble in South Africa which was echoing at 25: the rumble was apartheid -- actually a world wide concern with racism. This concern found focus in the United States with attempts to put pressure on American corporations to modify personnel policies to eliminate discriminatory practices in the workplace.
Those individuals and organizations in the not-for-profit sector maintained a level of pressure on shareholder relations officials and their seniors. Their objective was adoption of new policies and practices which would lead to equal treatment for all races, particularly the black majority in South Africa.
What we have here in another example of the conflict often faced by those in leadership positions in religious organizations -- and all of us in this room qualify on that ground. We are always engaged in a struggle to reconcile our image of ourselves as prophetic and our image of ourselves as institutional servants.
But let me walk you through our process.
Atlanta IV
Over a year ago, the Executive Committee initiated a review of Board of Trustees Policies which had been established over many years. They needed to be coordinated and many were out of date. The task of codification and revision was divided up and the Financial Advisor was given the responsibility for Investment Policy.
Last January, after almost a year of study by the Investment Committee, your Board of Trustees adopted a new Investment policy. Later in the year, as public concern about conditions in South Africa mounted, we took this question up in the context of our new investment policy. In successive actions at our April and June meetings, our Board adopted a specific policy regarding investment in such securities.
It was very hard to find the right path, balancing the responsibility to nurture our investments, and trying to achieve the greatest possible return on our investments to fund what the General Assembly, the Administration and Board believed we should do. As the elected Financial Advisor, I was captive to the dilemma of South African Investments as much as anyone and, perhaps, by background, more caught on each of its horns than many of my fellow UUs.
The issue of apartheid itself is simple. Adopting the appropriate institutional response was complex, and in itself, posed ethical problems. What the Board put on the scale was a simple question wrung out of the complex issue. Was there any position, short of a commitment to complete divestiture, that would make clear to our constituency and to the outside world our overriding concern about the moral issues raised by apartheid?
We knew some of the 60,000 to 70,000 blacks employed by American companies in South Africa could suffer directly, and many more of their dependents and others in the economic chain could suffer as well from a withdrawal by U. S. companies from South Africa. We knew our action by itself might accomplish little more than a P.R. ripple. We knew, although we could limit our direct monetary losses to only the transaction costs by carefully executed sales, the test would be: in what do we invest the proceeds of divestiture sales? We knew we were going to be seriously handicapped in reinvesting those proceeds.
The bottom line is that there is an ongoing cost association with the operation of a South Africa-free portfolio and, although it is difficult to quantify, our investment managers placed it between one-half and one per cent per year. In other words, on the approximately $30 million of assets in the UUA’s own investment portfolio, we might expect to realize some $150,000 to $300,000 less each year as a result of the adoption of a divestiture policy.
Sometimes, great issues can only be dealt with in the simplest terms. The UUA Board of Trustees weighed all these factors and adopted a policy calling for full divestiture. The ultimate bottom line was perceived to be apartheid and that is what we dealt with.
I have to tell you that many UUs, myself included, have had a very difficult time with this issue. I have literally agonized over it for the better part of the past year. Those of us concerned have had to find the right path, balancing:
1. The responsibility to nurture our investments as the Trustees we are and achieve a return on our investments to enable us to fund as many as possible of the programs and services we believe we need;
2. Questions about how much a policy of divestiture would, in fact, influence conditions in South Africa; and
3. The need, in the context of this issue, to make a religious statement about apartheid that is clear and unambiguous.
In the eyes of our own constituency and of the world outside, we needed to say -- all investments considerations weighed -- the ultimate consideration was our conviction about apartheid.
Our decision making process has been as informed as it could be. We know other responsible fiduciaries of religious and charitable organizations and foundations have taken similar action. And we have looked ourselves in the eye -- checked our profiles in the three way mirror -- and said: We must do this.
To allow no ambiguity, no misunderstanding about our perception of apartheid, we are going to accomplish this divestitute in the quickest and most reasonable way. We know it will not be easy.
Last January, after almost a year of study by the Investment Committee, your Board of Trustees adopted a new Investment policy. Later in the year, as public concern about conditions in South Africa mounted, we took this question up in the context of our new investment policy. In successive actions at our April and June meetings, our Board adopted a specific policy regarding investment in such securities.
It was very hard to find the right path, balancing the responsibility to nurture our investments, and trying to achieve the greatest possible return on our investments to fund what the General Assembly, the Administration and Board believed we should do. As the elected Financial Advisor, I was captive to the dilemma of South African Investments as much as anyone and, perhaps, by background, more caught on each of its horns than many of my fellow UUs.
The issue of apartheid itself is simple. Adopting the appropriate institutional response was complex, and in itself, posed ethical problems. What the Board put on the scale was a simple question wrung out of the complex issue. Was there any position, short of a commitment to complete divestiture, that would make clear to our constituency and to the outside world our overriding concern about the moral issues raised by apartheid?
We knew some of the 60,000 to 70,000 blacks employed by American companies in South Africa could suffer directly, and many more of their dependents and others in the economic chain could suffer as well from a withdrawal by U. S. companies from South Africa. We knew our action by itself might accomplish little more than a P.R. ripple. We knew, although we could limit our direct monetary losses to only the transaction costs by carefully executed sales, the test would be: in what do we invest the proceeds of divestiture sales? We knew we were going to be seriously handicapped in reinvesting those proceeds.
The bottom line is that there is an ongoing cost association with the operation of a South Africa-free portfolio and, although it is difficult to quantify, our investment managers placed it between one-half and one per cent per year. In other words, on the approximately $30 million of assets in the UUA’s own investment portfolio, we might expect to realize some $150,000 to $300,000 less each year as a result of the adoption of a divestiture policy.
Sometimes, great issues can only be dealt with in the simplest terms. The UUA Board of Trustees weighed all these factors and adopted a policy calling for full divestiture. The ultimate bottom line was perceived to be apartheid and that is what we dealt with.
I have to tell you that many UUs, myself included, have had a very difficult time with this issue. I have literally agonized over it for the better part of the past year. Those of us concerned have had to find the right path, balancing:
1. The responsibility to nurture our investments as the Trustees we are and achieve a return on our investments to enable us to fund as many as possible of the programs and services we believe we need;
2. Questions about how much a policy of divestiture would, in fact, influence conditions in South Africa; and
3. The need, in the context of this issue, to make a religious statement about apartheid that is clear and unambiguous.
In the eyes of our own constituency and of the world outside, we needed to say -- all investments considerations weighed -- the ultimate consideration was our conviction about apartheid.
Our decision making process has been as informed as it could be. We know other responsible fiduciaries of religious and charitable organizations and foundations have taken similar action. And we have looked ourselves in the eye -- checked our profiles in the three way mirror -- and said: We must do this.
To allow no ambiguity, no misunderstanding about our perception of apartheid, we are going to accomplish this divestitute in the quickest and most reasonable way. We know it will not be easy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)