"There was once a Garden. It contained many hundreds of species. There were two anthropoids who were more intelligent than the other animals. On one of the trees there was a fruit very high up, so they began to think. That was a mistake....to think purposively. The he ape, Adam, went and got an empty box and put it under the tree, and second box and put it on top of the first, and finally he got the apple.
Adam and Eve then became almost drunk with excitement. This was the way to do things. Make a plan, ABC and you get D They then began to specialize in doing things the planned way. In effect, they cast out from the Garden the concept of their own total systemic natures and of its total systemic nature. Pretty soon, the topsoil disappeared. After that several species of plants became weeds and some animals became pests and Adam found gardening much harder work. He said, “It’s a vengeful God. I should never have eaten the apple.” Eve heard a voice say, “In pain shalt thou bring forth...”
These opening words are from Gregory Bateson: Conscious Purpose vs. Nature from “Steps to an Ecology of Mind.”
When we become drunk with the excitement of eating the apple, with the possibilities of making a plan, of carrying it through and of achieving an objective - with the Power of the knowledge of good and evil, we sometimes tend to pile the boxes a bit too high and our careful plan comes tumbling down.
Is this an abstraction? Yes, but it is also, in a sense, the story of the 1987-1988 fiscal year. Let me touch on some of the problems in the garden in the past year, although some of them had their roots going back over an earlier time.
The result was that we borrowed funds, first from the bank which added interest costs to our budget. We ultimately decided we were better off for a number of reasons to borrow from ourselves, although this has the effect of reducing our income from those funds previously invested.
We also determined we needed to increase our unrestricted capital by repaying out of our budget at a faster rate, a number of costs we were writing off over time. These actions taken together put pressure on our budget and we had to make a series of retrenchments, but no programs were cut nor staff let go.
Charles Hampden-Turner in the “Maps of the Mind’ says, “The tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was but one tree in the Garden of Eden. In modern terminology, we may call it a “decision tree,” one sub-assembly of thought and action in the midst of an ecological network and balanced environment of the Garden. Whenever man (according to Hampden-Turner) acts purposively, one part of the total system is arbitrarily made into a subject and other parts into objects or means for satisfying desire (or reaching fruit). This has an inherent tendency to upset the balance of the whole.”
We have been upsetting the balance of the whole over the past ten years with respect to our record keeping and internal communications, acting purposively, trying to reach the fruits of contemporary electronic data processing. In those ten years we have spent over $2.5 million on computerizing our record keeping and operations . Further expenditures will be required to bring our systems to current levels of technology and to integrate them with each other. This effort haas been the major draw upon our unrestricted capital in recent years, the tantalizing serpent of the financial pressures of the past years.
Through the end of last year we had recovered through changes to the operating budget approximately $800,000 of the $3.5 million. The accumulating costs grew significant more rapidly than we were charging them off, or to put it another way, Adam and Eve and Bob and others were piling the boxes a little too high. By itself this situation would have been manageable. Taken together with other things which have been happening, the pressures were great on the stack of boxes. We have now speeded up the write-off. We have stopped capitalizing for the computer costs, and beginning in the 1987-1988 fiscal year, we have budgeted $190,000 per year to pay down computer costs not covered by prior year budgets. This is part of our program of restoring working capital.
Showing posts with label 1987-Palm Springs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1987-Palm Springs. Show all posts
Palm Springs II
I want to remind you that our days in the Garden as we first may have known it are over. We are now in that state which has been described as that in which humankind is torn between the anxiety of losing itself through not fulfilling its potential and losing itself through errors involved in the attempt to fulfill it. I want to speak of two matters which may illustrate this state and also I must say many of you will not want to hear. I do this because I believe it is part of what the Financial Advisor’s job description calls upon me to do.
First, there has been a lot more heat than light generated in the past two years about the UUA’s real estate activities. We took certain steps we needed to take to respond to our current needs for office and housing facilities. I’m not going into details at this time, but I do want to share a few comments with you. The details are set out in a page plus of text, beginning at page 2 of the Financial Advisor’s written report, the very last one in your handbook.
We have purchased two new buildings in the past two years. One replaced a building we already owned and had sold, the other was an office building to provide adequate work space for our staff and allow us to free up lodging space to beat rising hotel costs. The costs may seem high to some of you as compared to prices in your own communities, but they are not high relatively. We have purchased solid assets likely to grow in value, with space more economical to operate than rental accommodations. If we had had all of our endowment funds invested in Beacon Hill real estate in the past ten years, instead of in the securities markets, we would have a lot fewer financial concerns.
Yes, these transactions came at a poor time in terms of the aggregate of other pressures on our working capital, but the response to our financial pressures or to the concern of some of you about the value of our real estate (if sold) is not to sell our buildings in Boston and move elsewhere. Believe me, our concerns and problems are portable: they will go with us. The question is not where the UUA should be located were we starting anew: the question is: does it make any sense even to think about relocating - in my opinion, it does not, and those who advocate such a move have not really thought the problem through in terms of its many consequences.
The cost of moving the furniture and fixtures would be modest compared with alternate site studies, costs of selling the old and acquiring new facilities, relocation expenses for staff including trips to the new location to find new homes and jobs for spouses, and expenses of selling existing homes and moving expenses of household goods. Also, factor in time in planning for the move. The costs of a move in time and energy are great; a significant amount of the attention of our executive and managerial staff would be consumed for at least two years. Much of our momentum would be lost for that time. Those employees not wanting to move from Boston - and I would guess it would be a majority of our staff - would immediately start to find other jobs and leave the UUA. Replacing them with capable people until after a move was completed would be almost impossible.
Can you imagine the impact on the ongoing activities of our Development Office our RE programs and services, our extension effort, or the Beacon Press?
First, there has been a lot more heat than light generated in the past two years about the UUA’s real estate activities. We took certain steps we needed to take to respond to our current needs for office and housing facilities. I’m not going into details at this time, but I do want to share a few comments with you. The details are set out in a page plus of text, beginning at page 2 of the Financial Advisor’s written report, the very last one in your handbook.
We have purchased two new buildings in the past two years. One replaced a building we already owned and had sold, the other was an office building to provide adequate work space for our staff and allow us to free up lodging space to beat rising hotel costs. The costs may seem high to some of you as compared to prices in your own communities, but they are not high relatively. We have purchased solid assets likely to grow in value, with space more economical to operate than rental accommodations. If we had had all of our endowment funds invested in Beacon Hill real estate in the past ten years, instead of in the securities markets, we would have a lot fewer financial concerns.
Yes, these transactions came at a poor time in terms of the aggregate of other pressures on our working capital, but the response to our financial pressures or to the concern of some of you about the value of our real estate (if sold) is not to sell our buildings in Boston and move elsewhere. Believe me, our concerns and problems are portable: they will go with us. The question is not where the UUA should be located were we starting anew: the question is: does it make any sense even to think about relocating - in my opinion, it does not, and those who advocate such a move have not really thought the problem through in terms of its many consequences.
The cost of moving the furniture and fixtures would be modest compared with alternate site studies, costs of selling the old and acquiring new facilities, relocation expenses for staff including trips to the new location to find new homes and jobs for spouses, and expenses of selling existing homes and moving expenses of household goods. Also, factor in time in planning for the move. The costs of a move in time and energy are great; a significant amount of the attention of our executive and managerial staff would be consumed for at least two years. Much of our momentum would be lost for that time. Those employees not wanting to move from Boston - and I would guess it would be a majority of our staff - would immediately start to find other jobs and leave the UUA. Replacing them with capable people until after a move was completed would be almost impossible.
Can you imagine the impact on the ongoing activities of our Development Office our RE programs and services, our extension effort, or the Beacon Press?
Palm Springs III
Frankly, I have never considered myself to be just a bottom line numbers person and I have to say that what bothers me the most about this motion is how we could consider dealing with our staff in such a callous way, proposing to relocate them to another part of the country in disregard of their personal preferences and family associations. I don’t believe that even to think of such a step affirms and promotes the inherent worth and dignity of every employee, or extends to them justice, equity and compassion in human relations.
There is a great deal more which could be said on this subject and I don’t mean to oversimplify it, but my advice is to put this divisive and distracting idea aside. The financial costs are much higher than you may think; the savings much less; the human cost inconsistent with our values. We can spend the next several years arguing over this proposal or we can bend our efforts to strengthening our Association and supporting the value systems we cherish. I think that moving, and moving forward are mutually exclusive.
The second matter we need to talk about is a most painful one.
There has been a major concern drawing the attention of your Board of Trustees, of the UUA Administration, of the Council on Church Staff Finances, of the UUMA and of many of its individual members for the past three years. It is a matter on which I have not reported to you in the past, because until the last several months, most of those involved hoped for a happy resolution.
I am talking about the health insurance program which covers some 30-35% of our ministers, plus a number of staff in our member congregations. This is a complex problem and I cannot begin to go into it in any depth, but I must report with much distress, that at its meeting on Wednesday last, the UUA Board voted to terminate the plan.
We have been faced with a combination of factors which have rendered the plan no longer financially viable.
- Declining enrollment in the Plan as younger ministers find it too costly, and
- Produces too small a group to pool premiums to cover claims and leaves us with
- Heavy claims experience. We are currently paying out more than we are collecting in premiums.
Our own problems within the plan structure have been exacerbated by external factors, principally:
- Sharply rising health costs, and
- A government policy insensitive to the financial risks borne by its citizens when their health is at stake.
And I might add that it is not just the present administration in Washington that has failed to lead us to health care parity with the rest of the civilized nations. This problem is at least 50 years old.
There is a great deal more which could be said on this subject and I don’t mean to oversimplify it, but my advice is to put this divisive and distracting idea aside. The financial costs are much higher than you may think; the savings much less; the human cost inconsistent with our values. We can spend the next several years arguing over this proposal or we can bend our efforts to strengthening our Association and supporting the value systems we cherish. I think that moving, and moving forward are mutually exclusive.
The second matter we need to talk about is a most painful one.
There has been a major concern drawing the attention of your Board of Trustees, of the UUA Administration, of the Council on Church Staff Finances, of the UUMA and of many of its individual members for the past three years. It is a matter on which I have not reported to you in the past, because until the last several months, most of those involved hoped for a happy resolution.
I am talking about the health insurance program which covers some 30-35% of our ministers, plus a number of staff in our member congregations. This is a complex problem and I cannot begin to go into it in any depth, but I must report with much distress, that at its meeting on Wednesday last, the UUA Board voted to terminate the plan.
We have been faced with a combination of factors which have rendered the plan no longer financially viable.
- Declining enrollment in the Plan as younger ministers find it too costly, and
- Produces too small a group to pool premiums to cover claims and leaves us with
- Heavy claims experience. We are currently paying out more than we are collecting in premiums.
Our own problems within the plan structure have been exacerbated by external factors, principally:
- Sharply rising health costs, and
- A government policy insensitive to the financial risks borne by its citizens when their health is at stake.
And I might add that it is not just the present administration in Washington that has failed to lead us to health care parity with the rest of the civilized nations. This problem is at least 50 years old.
Palm Springs IV
The UUA took the plan over from the UUMA in 1986 and bent a series of efforts to stabilize and strengthen the plan, but despite Herculean efforts by the Council on Church Staff Finances and the Administration, the situation got worse and worse. An independent insurance consulting firm advised us that the plan was not viable unless we were to make it mandatory for all clergy, church staff and UUA staff. Even then, the initial years would be difficult.
The consultants were asked to estimate how much of a lump sum payment might be required to salvage the plan. They said they could not be certain but not even $10 million would guarantee continuity. Those ministers and church staff who are members of the Plan are being left in great uncertainty, we are all aware. Most will be able to secure other, possibly cheaper coverage, but too many will find themselves uninsurable, or limited in options and coverage by preexisting conditions of their own or members of their families. In order to avoid gaps in coverage because of waiting periods, many will face he necessity of paying for some kind of double coverage for a period of time.
Ministers and congregations will also face problems because most regionally based coverage which will be available will not have portability, and the transferability of our clergy may be limited. This is altogether a most unhappy situation. Many people worked long and hard to avert it, but there is no basis for putting off the inevitable any longer. Everything that can reasonably be done to ease the transition will be done. Until we know how each individual situation shakes out, we will not know the totality of the problem facing us and what it might be feasible to do about it.
Your Moderator and I met with the Executive Committee of the UUMA and with the Association body itself on Wednesday to explain the action taken and what we would have to suffer with until we know enough to attempt to deal in some constructive way with the fallout from our decision. Both the UUMA Executive Committee and the ministers as a group were most understanding - and anxious to offer positive assistance to ministers and to the Council on Church Staff Finances as we try to work through the next seven months to the effective termination date.
Without the measure of the problem it would be impossible to make any commitments as to how much financial help the UUMA or the UUA can provide. We are all most sensitive to the wrenching ethical questions posed here: namely how much of a commitment can the UUA make, given its own limited resources, to those plan participants who will we left at serious financial risk as a result of this action.
The Administration and the Board are going to try to do as much as is feasible. Give us a chance to get the measure of the problem and to study the alternatives. It was not, and is not, the intention of the Board to wash its hands of the participants, but only to recognize at last, that the plan we had cannot be made to work.
For those inerested in considering this further - discussing the problems - there will be a hearing this evening at 10:00 pm in the Mohawk Learning center in the Wyndham Hotel.
The consultants were asked to estimate how much of a lump sum payment might be required to salvage the plan. They said they could not be certain but not even $10 million would guarantee continuity. Those ministers and church staff who are members of the Plan are being left in great uncertainty, we are all aware. Most will be able to secure other, possibly cheaper coverage, but too many will find themselves uninsurable, or limited in options and coverage by preexisting conditions of their own or members of their families. In order to avoid gaps in coverage because of waiting periods, many will face he necessity of paying for some kind of double coverage for a period of time.
Ministers and congregations will also face problems because most regionally based coverage which will be available will not have portability, and the transferability of our clergy may be limited. This is altogether a most unhappy situation. Many people worked long and hard to avert it, but there is no basis for putting off the inevitable any longer. Everything that can reasonably be done to ease the transition will be done. Until we know how each individual situation shakes out, we will not know the totality of the problem facing us and what it might be feasible to do about it.
Your Moderator and I met with the Executive Committee of the UUMA and with the Association body itself on Wednesday to explain the action taken and what we would have to suffer with until we know enough to attempt to deal in some constructive way with the fallout from our decision. Both the UUMA Executive Committee and the ministers as a group were most understanding - and anxious to offer positive assistance to ministers and to the Council on Church Staff Finances as we try to work through the next seven months to the effective termination date.
Without the measure of the problem it would be impossible to make any commitments as to how much financial help the UUMA or the UUA can provide. We are all most sensitive to the wrenching ethical questions posed here: namely how much of a commitment can the UUA make, given its own limited resources, to those plan participants who will we left at serious financial risk as a result of this action.
The Administration and the Board are going to try to do as much as is feasible. Give us a chance to get the measure of the problem and to study the alternatives. It was not, and is not, the intention of the Board to wash its hands of the participants, but only to recognize at last, that the plan we had cannot be made to work.
For those inerested in considering this further - discussing the problems - there will be a hearing this evening at 10:00 pm in the Mohawk Learning center in the Wyndham Hotel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)