25.12.2014 Views

The 213th Annual Council - Diocese of Virginia

The 213th Annual Council - Diocese of Virginia

The 213th Annual Council - Diocese of Virginia

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Proceedings<br />

updated pledges, changes in the asking for <strong>The</strong> <strong>Virginia</strong> Episcopalian approved by the<br />

Executive Board and revised estimates <strong>of</strong> restricted income. We then made adjustments<br />

to the expense line items to assure we had a balanced budget. We needed to make about<br />

$70,000 worth <strong>of</strong> cuts to the various line items in the budget, but increases in income,<br />

in the income line estimates, reduced us to about $66,000. Recall that the need for the<br />

adjustment was due to the fact that the proposed budget approved by the Executive<br />

Board in December did not include the $70,000 in interest expenses in the expense totals.<br />

We considered not only the requests for each line item, but also the ability to access other<br />

funds, and funds available from other sources and funds remaining from prior year<br />

operations for those line items. As I stated earlier, we also considered your pleas and<br />

comments from the hearing last night.<br />

Next I will highlight the adjustments we made, but first I would like to introduce the<br />

members <strong>of</strong> the Budget Committee. I ask the Committee members to please take one step<br />

forward as I call your name: Bill Fetsch, Daniel Robayo, Don O’Connell, Doug Geddes,<br />

John Baker, Kirk Gibson, Roy Barksdale and Anna Lou Flynn. And those who could not<br />

be present due to illness or other commitments: Don Cady, Carol Burroughs and Laura<br />

Inscoe. And I would be remiss not to thank very much the staff members <strong>of</strong> this <strong>Diocese</strong><br />

for their tremendous help and support during this process.<br />

Now let us look at the budget as proposed by the Committee. I would remind you<br />

that the detailed explanation <strong>of</strong> each line item is available online in a document we<br />

call the narrative budget. That should answer many questions about what each line<br />

item represents. Mike [Kerr] also provided some additional explanations in his report<br />

yesterday and at the hearing last night.<br />

Please turn to the budget document as distributed this morning that is on your table. If<br />

you do not have those documents, please raise your hand and diocesan staff members or<br />

a PYM member will try to bring you additional copies.<br />

<strong>The</strong> income side <strong>of</strong> the budget is based on parish pledges and other items shown. Based<br />

on pledges received to date, we made an adjustment downward for income line A from<br />

the December proposal. This is <strong>of</strong>fset by an upward adjustment in line C for increased<br />

asking for <strong>The</strong> <strong>Virginia</strong> Episcopalian. We also adjusted expected income for restricted<br />

funds, and that’s in line E, and that adjustment is up. This gives us an estimated total<br />

income for 2008 for $4,794,764.<br />

Now, for the expenses. While I will not walk you through all line items <strong>of</strong> the budget, I<br />

will summarize the changes we made to specific categories to achieve a balanced budget.<br />

In fact, we adjusted more than 30 individual line items to achieve this balanced budget.<br />

In category A, that remains the same because that is based on a formula, and based on<br />

last year’s plotted income. Category B, ecumenical partnerships, yes, we had to cut some<br />

items, trying to be sensitive to the needs <strong>of</strong> all areas <strong>of</strong> the budget, trying to share the<br />

pain equitably. I’ll remind you that our giving through budget is but a part <strong>of</strong> a larger<br />

budget for the many ministries we support. <strong>The</strong> total adjustment here was $5,100, or<br />

about 5 percent. Category C, support for youth and young adult ministry, was adjusted<br />

by $7,490, or a little less than 3 percent <strong>of</strong> the original proposal. Category D, missions and<br />

church planting, was adjusted downward by $7,000, or about 1 percent <strong>of</strong> the Executive<br />

Board proposal. Category E, programs and committees, was adjusted downward by<br />

$4,750 or about 6 percent. Category F, canonical ministries and bishop’s commissions, was<br />

adjusted downward by $20,681. Most <strong>of</strong> this adjustment was in line 10, Commission on<br />

Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Standards, whose role has been assumed by the Committee on Continuing<br />

116<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Diocese</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Virginia</strong> t Journal <strong>of</strong> the the 213 th <strong>Annual</strong> <strong>Council</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!