Pastoral Charge Payroll Service

The Pastoral Charge Payroll Service was approved by the Executive of the General Council in November 2006, and a letter distributed church-wide in May 2007 outlined the initial steps in its implementation. This service came out of the recommendations of the Compensation Project Report to the 39th General Council 2006. Where did the Compensation Project Report come from, and what else did it recommend?

View a presentation on the Compensation Models Project [PDF: 6 pp/108 KB] presented to some 2008 Conference annual general meetings and other information sessions. This presentation focuses on the Pastoral Charge Payroll Service in the context of the larger Compensation Models Project.

The Process of Change

Concerns about the church’s compensation policies were first raised in 1997. In 2003, the Executive of the General Council agreed to fund the expertise needed to develop new models. A project manager with expertise in compensation, Jim King, was hired and an eight-member steering group was appointed by the Permanent Committee for Ministry and Employment Policies and Services (PC-MEPS).

In preparation for the 39th General Council, the steering group worked with King to

• help bring clarity and context to the issues
• review research results and analytical data provided by focus groups held across the country, with input from all Conferences
• provide input regarding hypotheses presented
• provide guidance in the development of recommendations from PC-MEPS

Top

Compensation Project Recommendations

The Compensation Models Project report to the 39th General Council 2006 made the following four recommendations, which were referred to the Executive of the General Council for further action.

1. Implementing a centralized payroll service

This step began in 2007 with the implementation of the Pastoral Charge Payroll Service; it may take two years to roll out across all Conferences. The Pastoral Charge Payroll Service is mandatory for all ministers in a pastoral charge, and open to all employees in pastoral charges.

Congregations, in consultation with their presbyteries, will still make all salary decisions. The centralized payroll service will only change the mechanics of how the funds are transferred from their account to the minister's. Pastoral charges will pay salaries plus benefits by direct debit, and the ministers and employees will receive their salary, with the appropriate deductions, on time by direct deposit.

This move has several benefits. Treasurers from across Canada have applauded it for freeing them from the time-consuming and difficult task of calculating deductions and preparing T4s. The United Church will be better able to ensure that compensation practices are fairly applied across the church, and the resulting data will help shape changes resulting from the other recommendations.

In the discussion of this recommendation at General Council 39, commissioners had two primary concerns. The first was the service's cost. In the current system, the costs are largely invisible, but they still exist. This service will make the cost visible, not create a major new liability. The second concern was how the practice might affect the pastoral relationship. Everything except the transfer of funds will remain unchanged. Pastoral charges will still determine the salary, retain responsibility for funds, and nurture the relationship.

2. Providing a comprehensive salary to all ministry personnel

The Executive of the General Council still needs to decide when and how it will proceed with this recommendation. If it proceeds, the various compensation components—salary, manse/housing, telephone, and heat—will be rolled into one comprehensive figure. There are lots of details to work out to ensure compliance with all government taxation and pension regulations and to address the specifics of how manses will be accommodated where they are required.

While this may incur a small additional cost to Employment Insurance and Canada/Quebec Pension Plan premiums, it should be revenue neutral with the current basket of salary allowances rolled into one figure. This will not affect ministers' eligibility to claim the "clergy residence deduction" that Canada Revenue provides, since function determines eligibility and value is based on earned income and the value of the occupied residence.

3. Redesigning ministry personnel's salary structure

In order to have more consistency for ministers in each category, the steering group recommended a new salary structure that provides minimum and maximum compensation levels for each category. They also recommended a differential in the salaries of order of ministry, lay pastoral ministers, and staff associates to address current inequities and the cost of different educational requirements.

There is still a lot of work to do before any of these changes can be made. Rest assured that the Executive will proceed with the utmost prayer and care. As it does, it will carefully consider several concerns raised at the General Council, such as how the church accounts for the wide variation in housing costs across the country, what structure best honours the requirements and contributions of each group of ministry personnel, and how the church accommodates the terms of existing pastoral relationships.

4. Implementing a way to augment compensation for exceptional circumstances

The fourth proposal for the Executive's consideration is a centrally administered and funded system to compensate ministry personnel in exceptionally high-cost, remote locations and clergy couples where only one full residence tax deduction may be claimed. It will take several years to implement these proposals, since both ministry personnel and pastoral charges need a reasonable transition time and the new practices must meet the test of being just, fair, equitable, sustainable, and consistent.

Top

Compensation Models Project Steering Group

The steering group that worked to prepare the Compensation Models Project report to the 39th General Council were the following:

• Ken Clark: Maritime Conference, brought an extensive background in law and in congregational finances and governance
• Lillian Roberts: Montreal and Ottawa Conference, brought experience with the Conference staff system and program evaluation
• Alan Hall: Toronto Conference, chaired the steering group and is a member of PC-MEPS, and brought experience with the Conference staff system, GCO human resources, and both rural and urban ministry
• Eric Bacon: Hamilton Conference, brought experience from church administration and business, in addition to experience as a minister and as the spouse of a staff associate
• Gary Jones: London Conference, brought applied research experience and current rural ministry practice
• Bob James: Conference of Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario, a member of PC-MEPS, brought an extensive background in pensions and congregational leadership
• Alex Taylor: Saskatchewan Conference, brought pastoral experience in addition to extensive public sector experience in workers' compensation, health care, and social services
• Dawne Taylor: British Columbia Conference, brought experience as a wage and salary specialist and with regional compensation reviews, as well as with both urban and rural ministry