PREACHER PENSIONS

We attended the Conference presentation on the proposal to fund the new mandated pension plan for pastors held at the Comanche FUMC April 2.
As I understand the proposal from the Conference Pension Fund Committee the General Conference mandated a new plan to provide retiring ministers a much better retirement than in the past and I am all for that. Of course it will cost more money. Five percent more will be added to the 12% of the pastor's pay (salary + an allotment for either a parsonage or housing).
What galled my saddle sores was their proposal to cap the amount contributed by the large churches. When the salary + hits the average salary they don't pay on the amount above that figure. As a result all of us small churches have to pay the full amount while the big boys get a pass. If they paid their percentage on the full salary, it would reduce the amount paid by the smaller churches. I think if they want to pay more than the conference average salary, power to them, but they should pay the full amount toward funding the pension fund.
When I asked if this proposal could be changed at the Annual Conference, they said No. It had to be accepted or rejected and if rejected the committee will have to go back and study it and call a special Annual Conference to consider their new proposal (which costs a lot of money for the called session).
I have been a lay member of the Annual Conference in the past and do not appreciate how they operate. As I understand any member can offer an amendment to a proposal and get it changed. Those in charge try to stop the changes anyway they can. I am not a member of the annual conference this year, but I hope the members from the small churches will stand up and make the change required for fairness to those of us who pay our full apportionments every year.
The large churches have a record of not paying their full apportionments, but they get the largest number of members to the conference, which is also a burr under my saddle.
Charles