NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

D.A.

Oops. Looks like Twitter fell over at exactly the wrong moment. Would be interesting to see how the vote on amendment 19c went, to see if your ministers are prepared to put their own money towards helping PMS savers...

EDIT: looks like the amendment to the amendment to the amendment which was finally approved is a bit mealy-mouthed...

ballyblack

Irish Times today

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0610/1224272193274.html

News Letter;

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Clergy-divided-on-PMS-bonus.6353046.

ink

I'm not sure what Presbyterian General Assembly the writer of the News Letter story was at yesterday, but it certainly seems to have been one in a parallel universe to the one I was at.

It's disappointing when the News Letter has so often given good, factual coverage to the PMS situation, that they should be inaccurate with today's story.

Let me give you the shortened version of what I saw happen.
An amendment asking ministers to contribute their CMF bonus "as long as necessary" to any future hardship fund instead of issuing a general appeal (which was the original resolution) was put forward.

A few elders (not ministers) spoke to oppose it, believing that it was wasn't right for ministers exclusively to take the hit when 'we are all in this together'. One or two ministers did express reservations that the resolution might pressurise ministers who were finding things tough financially, to feel they had to contribute even though it would have put them under unacceptable financial strain.

Everyone was in agreement that we did not want to send a message that the ministers weren't willing to be first to put their money into a hardship fund. If the elders had voted against the amendment, it might have looked that way.

There was some to-ing and fro-ing to find a form of words which might be acceptable to overcome these genuine reservations.

The proposer of the amendment withdrew his specific proposal to leave the way open for a more general proposal, which read,

"That the General Assembly authorise the General Board when and if appropriate to ask ministers to contribute voluntarily what they judge they can afford to give a lead in raising the promised contribution agreed at the Special Assembly."

It was hoped that those ruling elders who had problems with the first amendment, could accept this because it was still allowing for an appeal to the wider church and allowing others to contribute to a hardship fund.

As for the 'clergy being divided' as the headline in the News Letter says-
First, we don't have 'clergy' in the PCI- we have teaching elders (usually called ministers) and ruling elders, each with a vote. The vote was taken on this resolution by secret ballot. There were 274 'for' and 164 'against'. How many for or against were teaching elders or ruling elders, no-one knows! Anyone who suggests they know is merely speculating.

This was only a vote on whether this amendment should become the Assembly's resolution. When it had been carried and was put to the Assembly as the 'substantive resolution' (i.e. what the Assembly definitely wanted to say) it was agreed with no-one voting against.

I know this all sounds convoluted and you are already dropping off by now but like it, loathe it, understand it or not (I fall into this last category on many occasions) that's the procedure.

What PMS savers should take away from that part of the General Assembly is that there are many ministers in PCI, who are willing to pray and pastor and to give what they can to a hardship fund. The fact a hardship fund wasn't set up by PCI right at the beginning of the crisis or since, isn't because ministers won't support it.

The other important thing to remember, is that this was a vote on a hypothetical situation which may never happen. The General Assembly called on the new government "to consider the situation of the PMS savers as a matter of utmost urgency and to ensure that, as for all other savers in the United Kingdom, their savings are returned in full."

With the positive sounds coming from the new Westminster Government, the delegates at the Assembly were urged to continue to support the ongoing lobbying, which I know many ministers will do.

Any of you who've read my previous posts will know that I haven't been shy at having a go at PCI when I think they've messed up. But this is one occasion when the phrase 'getting a bad press' is justified. Many ministers are very aware of their responsibilities and will be continuing to support PMS savers, whatever the cost to us personally.

ballyblack

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Minister-defends-divided-PMS-vote.6356058.jp

ink

For whatever reason, the News Letter clearly has an agenda to create their own story around the PMS resolutions. Maybe there isn't much other news at the moment.

Let me assure you there was no "heated debate" at the General Assembly over a PMS hardship fund.

Yes, there was debate and there was disagreement over the wording of an amended resolution. Yes, it was convoluted and did get bogged down and a bit confused over a couple of technicalities. But it was not heated, before, during or after.

I've seen heated debates at the General Assembly. This was not one of them. This was a minor difference of opinion, not a great split.

Toastandbutter

ink wrote: »

I'm not sure what Presbyterian General Assembly the writer of the News Letter story was at yesterday, but it certainly seems to have been one in a parallel universe to the one I was at.

It's disappointing when the News Letter has so often given good, factual coverage to the PMS situation, that they should be inaccurate with today's story.

Let me give you the shortened version of what I saw happen.
An amendment asking ministers to contribute their CMF bonus "as long as necessary" to any future hardship fund instead of issuing a general appeal (which was the original resolution) was put forward.

A few elders (not ministers) spoke to oppose it, believing that it was wasn't right for ministers exclusively to take the hit when 'we are all in this together'. One or two ministers did express reservations that the resolution might pressurise ministers who were finding things tough financially, to feel they had to contribute even though it would have put them under unacceptable financial strain.

Everyone was in agreement that we did not want to send a message that the ministers weren't willing to be first to put their money into a hardship fund. If the elders had voted against the amendment, it might have looked that way.

There was some to-ing and fro-ing to find a form of words which might be acceptable to overcome these genuine reservations.

The proposer of the amendment withdrew his specific proposal to leave the way open for a more general proposal, which read,

"That the General Assembly authorise the General Board when and if appropriate to ask ministers to contribute voluntarily what they judge they can afford to give a lead in raising the promised contribution agreed at the Special Assembly."

It was hoped that those ruling elders who had problems with the first amendment, could accept this because it was still allowing for an appeal to the wider church and allowing others to contribute to a hardship fund.

As for the 'clergy being divided' as the headline in the News Letter says-
First, we don't have 'clergy' in the PCI- we have teaching elders (usually called ministers) and ruling elders, each with a vote. The vote was taken on this resolution by secret ballot. There were 274 'for' and 164 'against'. How many for or against were teaching elders or ruling elders, no-one knows! Anyone who suggests they know is merely speculating.

This was only a vote on whether this amendment should become the Assembly's resolution. When it had been carried and was put to the Assembly as the 'substantive resolution' (i.e. what the Assembly definitely wanted to say) it was agreed with no-one voting against.

I know this all sounds convoluted and you are already dropping off by now but like it, loathe it, understand it or not (I fall into this last category on many occasions) that's the procedure.

What PMS savers should take away from that part of the General Assembly is that there are many ministers in PCI, who are willing to pray and pastor and to give what they can to a hardship fund. The fact a hardship fund wasn't set up by PCI right at the beginning of the crisis or since, isn't because ministers won't support it.

The other important thing to remember, is that this was a vote on a hypothetical situation which may never happen. The General Assembly called on the new government "to consider the situation of the PMS savers as a matter of utmost urgency and to ensure that, as for all other savers in the United Kingdom, their savings are returned in full."

With the positive sounds coming from the new Westminster Government, the delegates at the Assembly were urged to continue to support the ongoing lobbying, which I know many ministers will do.

Any of you who've read my previous posts will know that I haven't been shy at having a go at PCI when I think they've messed up. But this is one occasion when the phrase 'getting a bad press' is justified. Many ministers are very aware of their responsibilities and will be continuing to support PMS savers, whatever the cost to us personally.

---

Hi Ink

Can you be more specific about exactly where the News Letter supposedly got it wrong?

I was at the General Assembly and I think everything it wrote was accurate.

I fully accept your comments above, but to me they appear more like details to fill in the gaps around a fast paced news report rather than anything like a refutation of what the News Letter reported.

Again, can you point out any *specific* details that the News Letter got wrong?

Is it really credible that the News Letter has really been so spot on in all its high volume of PMS reporting up until now (as you say) and that it is suddenly got it so drastically wrong?

Or could it be that this is one of the few stories it has carried that has reflected so very badly on the church leadership to date and that you have found that a particularly tender point for some reason?

Many thanks
T&B

ink

Thanks for the comments and queries.
I'm not trying to avoid them but I will be pretty busy all weekend. Will respond in detail on Monday when I have a bit more time (I hope).

goodbyepci

Link to Slugger O'Toole
worth a read


http://sluggerotoole.com/2010/06/11/presbyterians-debate-pms/

Dr._Who_2

To be honest I hardly know what to make of the PMS "debacle" any longer - Stafford, at last, owned up during the Assembly debate to being "niave" that Gordon Brown seriously intended to do anything. Next Assembly will he say that he was being "niave" about David Cameron doing anything!! A takeover of the PMS seems the best option but this may not happen unless the government is prepared to put money in - will this Government, which is making cuts right, left and centre, be able to come up with the money!! Politicians make promises only to forget them. All we can I do, I believe, is trust and pray!!
For all I sakes I trust that we're not in the same situation next year - by the way, during the debate on Wed. the Assembly Clerk admitted that the £1million could be availabe NOW if needed and then it could be raised later.

Toastandbutter

Ink

You said;-

"This was a minor difference of opinion, not a great split."

The watered down compromise amendment got 274 votes for and 164 votes against.

We never saw what the actual backing was for the original amendment (to donate ministers' bonuses) because it was faced down by ministers and elders.

I would be interested to hear from other posters as to whether they would agree;-


Is 274 to 164 votes on the watered down resolution;- "a minor difference of opinion, not a great split" as Ink suggests ???


Thanks
T&B

PS We all know and accept that there was unanimous backing for the view of the 274 in the end, but I think those figures (274-164) for such a vague and flexible resolution will still be quite telling for PMS savers and absolutely consistent with how many feel they have been treated by the church since this all began.


PPS Ink, do you mind me asking if you are an elder (either ruling or teaching)?