Agenda Volume 3 - Methodist Conference

59. Memorials to the Conference
be open to discussions regarding shifting
the balance of ongoing support for their
projects so that the sponsoring District
contributed more and the overall work
did not have to be scaled back at all. For
a typical project, this would require the
District to find an extra £5k per year.
The Methodist Church faces significant
challenges in producing a sustainable
budget for connexional funds within the
constraints set by the Conference of 2011.
As the budget report shows, cost savings
have been made in a wide range of areas,
one of which is VentureFX. This matter was
carefully debated at great length by the
Methodist Council, which considered, but
rejected, a specific amendment regarding
the VentureFX budget.
The reply to the memorial is therefore
contained within the resolutions of the
Conference.
M20 Chester and Stoke-on-Trent District
Synod (R) (Present: 131. Voting: 125
for, 0 against)
This memorial was also received with the
same text as M19, except for the omission of
the ending of the third paragraph from ‘whilst
supporting’ onwards (replaced by ‘For the
following reasons:’) and the last sentence of
the seventh paragraph, and the substitution
of a different final paragraph, as below. The
Conference adopts the same reply.
l
As a District we have made financial
commitments on the basis of what
we believed is a five-year commitment
and partnership between the
Connexion and the District. Such
a change in that relationship will
cause considerable disquiet across
the District as we already have to
work hard to justify the movement of
money via assessments from Circuit
to District to the Connexion.
M21 Liverpool Synod (R) (Present: 80.
Voting: 57 for, 10 against)
This memorial was also received with the
same text as M20, except for the omission
of the final paragraph. The Conference
adopts the same reply.
M22 Nottingham and Derby District Synod
(R) (Present: 144. Voting: 137 for, 2
against)
This memorial was also received with the
same text as M21, except for the omission
of the first sentence of the sixth paragraph,
and the addition of a different final
paragraph, as below. The Conference adopts
the same reply.
l
The Nottingham East Circuit,
supported by the District, has made
financial commitments on the basis
of what we believed was a five-year
commitment and partnership. Such a
change in that relationship will cause
considerable disquiet across the
Circuit and could have a detrimental
impact on the Church in Sherwood,
the project itself and the project’s
relationship with the local community.
M23 Funding for VentureFX
The Cumbria District Synod (R) (Present:
104. Voting: 94 for, 0 against) shares
Conference Agenda 2012 785