The fact that something as important as the draft triennial budget could be so filled with errors speaks volumes about how dysfunctional our budget processes are. Reform is desperately needed - the way we spend our money is too important to be subject to errors like this. I suppose the good side of it is that the outrageous problems with this budget (increasing administrative costs in a time of budget-cutting, at the expense of mission) got enough people riled up that I believe that real change may finally be on the horizon.

Susan Snook

The budget process last triennium was worse than the budget process this time around. It might be worth figuring out why this happens. I don't think it can be attributed to free floating structural issues. At some point, some specific people take or don't take some specific actions. Possibly for the best of intentions. Possibly for reasons of which we are unaware. I think it would be useful for the church to have more information in this regard.

I am deeply grateful to Ms. Pollard and Bishop Lane for publicly confirming what had been rumored within hours of the publication of the draft triennial budget. Now in the light of day we can work together to answer the question of how the needs of the church and its mission might best be met. In the area of Formation and Vocation, we now have the opportunity and the obligation to strengthen networks and identify resources and programs that will positively impact the health and growth of the Episcopal Church well beyond the next three years.

Hey, I hard there are these things called "applications" or "programs" that can be used on "computers" to add numbers automatically.

I think the more technical term is "spreadsheet" and I believe some obscure company in a far flung city like, oh, I think near Seattle, called um, Microsift, or something like that, actually has a working prototype that can be purchased for a small sum (certainly less than the millions of dollars by which the budget is in error). Perhaps the committee could look into adding it into the budget for next triennium (there may even be a newer, more up to date version of the program by then, and it might even be in more common use - bonus!).

Seriously, the tiniest of parishes would be embarrassed to be this inept, never mind the national office.

I believe the primary reason for this breakdown in the process is the shortened meeting times - the EC does not have the luxury of looking closely at these items when all together and are obviously not doing the homework needed (maybe for lack of timely distribution of data) to make decisions when they are together in one physical space.

More info on process: This is my understanding -- the Executive Council did not get a budget with line items in it until the night before Council was supposed to vote on the budget. Up to that point all conversation was about priorities, abstractions, and rough assignments of numbers in broad categories.

Then after they did vote on a line item budget, the Church Center posted to the extranet a budget that took about about 40 percent of the 800 line items and replaced them with language saying that this line would be allocated in consultation with the executive team. (does anyone know who is on that team?)

So Ann, what you're saying is they could have come up with a more coherent budget by throwing darts blindfolded...