The trustees of the Church Pension Fund have decided not to grant a cost-of-living-related increase for retirees and surviving spouses in 2011, according to fund president Dennis T. Sullivan.
In a letter posted here on the Fund’s website, Sullivan added that the trustees will not make a “one-time special supplement” benefit payment as they did in 2010.
“I know this decision will be a disappointment to many of you,” Sullivan wrote.
This will be the second year in a row that the Fund has not made a cost-of-living-related increase.
Elves
Typo in the title… 2001 probably is meant to be 2011.
All is well!?
It is also the second year in a row that SS has not granted a cost-of-living-related increase. According to the gov. the cost
of living has not gone up.
Nice, and they fund CREDO to the tune of millions. I know. I’ve been to two but would much rather they give the money to clergy pensioners.
I will write Mr. Sullivan and ask him whether the Trustees have authorized her Eminence and her legal advisers to use pension funds in pursuit of their lawsuits.
Given the market the last three years, I don’t think there’s really anything negative that can be said about the performance of the Fund, and certainly the professional managers and the administrators on staff continue to do great work.
We’re going to miss Dennis Sullivan, and I for one will certainly continue to hold the Trustees in prayer as his successor is selected. He’s going to be a very, very tough act to follow.
That said, I agree with Senior Priest #4 that the so-called Wellness Initiative related to Credo and a number of other, smaller companion pieces was misguided. This I think a product of the very unfortunate and inaccurate concept of “abundance” that came into use during the last years of Alan Blanchard’s tenure. The purpose of this fund is to serve the beneficiaries–with life and disability insurance when active, with a retirement pension and subsidized medical benefits in retirement. There may be all sorts of other good ideas out there for the well-being of clergy and the wider church, but it is a mistake to think Pension should underwrite them. Nonetheless, CREDO is a very fine program, and what I tell clergy is that, like it or not, we’re paying for it, so we might as well take advantage of it.
Last year the impact of the decision not to add a COL increase was mitigated by an extraordinary “14th check.” I don’t know if something like that is in the cards this year or not, but it is nonetheless the case that the tempering of direct financial decisions with a caring pastoral sensibility is something that you find at Pension in a way that you would never see in public or corporate systems.
And Dan, believe me, if Pension Fund assets are [b]ever[/b] diverted for such use, the Insurance regulators of the State of New York better be all over them, and fast. I am myself somewhat concerned about the Board, and especially as some of the recent elections have seemed to me to have been more about where people were in the political mix than about the background, experience, education, and perspectives that would promote the best stewardship of this trust. But I guess that’s always been the case to some extent, and the effect is marginal at the moment in any event.
Bruce Robison
Just to affirm Bruce’s comments, the COL decision by the Pension board is a long-standing policy of fiscal conservatorship which has marked the overall success of the Pension value for so many years. That is in fact the fruit of good works. To suggest that “good works” must be redefined is misguided by attempts at stewardship theology that tends to be seasonal and trendy. “Abundance” teaching smelled so much like justification to make use of Pension funds for other purposes — “because it’s just sitting there doing nothing!” Right.
The real beneficiary of the value of the Pension fund is the ability to keep in the work force those clergy who “retire.” 18% Pension payments are only a “pay forward” back to the Church. This is especially a time in the life of the Church for us to see the reality of that fruit. I’m saying, look at the stats. 70 to 75% of our congregations can be classified as small congregations. 75% of those are barely – if at all – able to provide a full-time compensation package (currently speaking; yes, things can change). Where will the money come from to beef up full-time ministries? It won’t be coming. Instead, we will rely EVEN MORE on those “retired” clergy who can pull a full pension AND receive up to $33,000 per year in compensation in another or a continuing ministry to those small, revenue challenged congregations.
This may actually be the reason for a Wellness Initiative! If we want to keep our smaller congregations in sacramental and trained pastoral care, we’re going to have to keep our ordained workforce alive for another 7 to 10 years after retirement. 🙂