An Annuity Controversy Did Not Begin in the Last Decade or Two

An Annuity Controversy Did Not Begin in the Last Decade or Two

By Bishop Jeffrey N. Leath

I was a youth clergy member of the General Board 1980-1984. In that quadrennium, a crusade for a better annuity/pension system found voice in the late Rev. Dr. Henry A. Hildebrand.  The complaint was crystal clear: we need a system that affords participants the opportunity to direct at least a portion of their investment, and we need to invest with companies that pay higher interest.

Wherever money is involved, there are trust issues. When the Church moved from a “pension” system to an “annuity” system, participants received statements reflecting deposits, fees, and balances. We “believed” the money was “ours” being held and invested by the church. We did not think the Church could decide to give us less than what we contributed plus interest.

The “Connectional Church” was NOT necessarily the donor! Some pastors made the assessed “contribution to their annuity” out of their own pocket because the church could not afford it.  Others sacrificed pay raises to secure their retirement compensation.

We were not always content with various aspects of administration, but the focus was on the returns on invested funds. Our annuity system was a salary-based, vested interest retirement plan, not an employer “pension” program where the “connectional employer” set aside funds to pay a variable “pension.” This was no longer the plan where administrators paid $50 per quarter (or some other amount) to those retired and less than $100 per year to widows. This was a better, more equitable approach to funding retirements. If anything, folks saw it as a pooling of resources for better gain. The obstacles were limited available choices for investment, poor returns, and (yes) questions about who was being enriched by administrative fees–no bearing on the current situation (This is pre-2000.)

It seemed like a logical move to allow the Department to fund administration through various incentives, commissions, and financial perks that were common many years ago. However, rules and customs in the financial world are different today, and yesterday’s strategy is no longer feasible.

After forty years, can’t we get this right? There are those who have been on the General Board and Delegates to General Conferences for many of the last 40 years. Are you woke yet? Blind loyalty kept questions and demands to a minimum. It took a secure person who was not seeking position to speak out in the 1980’s. (Yes, it helped that his brother was a bishop. If you knew him and his bloodline, you can affirm that it was more his courage and integrity that ran deep.) Who will cry out in 2024?

In addition to the “Restoration,” we need a sound, secure, participant-involved, efficiently administered, productive annuity system. We need plan Trustees who will heed reasonable participants’ wishes according to the law and block avenues for administrative personal gain and abuse.

Dr. Hildebrand would surely cheer on our current Wespath relationship. We are only halfway there, though. Please support efforts to reform the entire system and make our administration the best possible.

God, give us the will and the way!