Policy Board actions not taken lightly

This is from Matt Schreck, explaining his views on what's happening:

I have been on the Stewardship Team for two years, and I have read the posts on this blog and have some thoughts, on which I will be happy to elaborate at Sunday’s meetings. I stress that the following is my opinion only, and I do not speak for my fellow Stewardship Team members.
First, I think we, as a Church congregation, need to avoid turning this debate into church constituency versus church constituency. I have the utmost respect for Cheryl, Sally, and all the other valuable members and staff who will be affected by these cuts, if and when they are made. These folks are the backbone of our church, and we have been blessed by their commitment and service.
Whether one agrees with the Policy Board’s decision to take a hard look at where we are spending our resources, and explore reallocating these resources to better meet our ends, it should be clear to all that we presently are living above our means based on our church income. Thus, I strongly believe that the Policy Board is taking the responsible action of inquiring if we are best utilizing our limited funds. I personally believe that the hiring of an interim minister is an important step for our church as we enter into our next phase. I also believe that a vibrant music program and a strong religious education program are also important.
But here’s the rub. Member pledges have actually decreased on the aggregate this year. A majority of our pledging units/families have either decreased their pledges for this year, or kept them static with last year. We still have members who do not pledge at all. If a program such as, for example, youth choir, is important to church members, the sad reality is that they must translate this support into making a meaningful financial commitment to the church. Frankly, and I stress this is my opinion and my opinion only, many of our members do not correlate their love of our church with a meaningful financial commitment based on their own circumstances. In other words, we could avoid these cuts, fund our existing programs, and hire an interim minister, with increased pledges. If our average pledge went up $500 (less than $2 per day), we would not be discussing the church’s “fiscal crisis.” I understand that not everyone can make this type of commitment, and no one should be expected or required to pledge beyond their means. But, I will note that many of our members did not increase their pledge at all this year – not a dollar more, despite the pleas of the Policy Board that absent additional pledges, painful budget cuts were likely.
Finally, church members should be aware that many of our more generous pledges come from staff members. That’s right—our employees (who are also church members) effectively refund a portion of their salaries to the congregation because they love the church and believe in its goals and message. We as a congregation should honor this commitment by our staff and work to increase our pledges to support the work that they do on our behalf.
In closing, these are indeed tough economic times. No one wants to be debating whether an employee must be laid off, or a program cut. I support the Policy Board taking the responsible action of addressing our deficits, examining all programs, and taking the hard but necessary action of budget cuts and realignments in the face of reduced revenues. This work, as they say, “isn’t for the faint of heart.” I’ve attended several of the meetings in which these issues have been discussed. Our Policy Board members and other members involved in the process literally ache when they discuss this. I personally know that none of them take these actions lightly. Fiduciary responsibility means sometimes taking action that, while in the best interest of the church, is personally wrenching nonetheless. I would hope that all who post on this blog, attend Sunday’s meetings, and on into the future take this into account as we face and solve these difficult issues together.