|
Minutes of the Tri-annual membership meeting of the
Foundation for Superannuation of the Canadian Reformed Churches held on May
11, 2013, in the Carman West church building.
(Note:
these are draft minutes that will be presented to the next
tri-annual meeting for approval; they are therefore subject to change)
OPENING
The chairman, Dr. J. Visscher, opens the meeting, reads Psalm
47 and then leads in prayer. Everyone present is welcomed to the meeting.
CREDENTIALS
A total of 31 members (both churches and the seminary) are represented at this meeting of the
Foundation.
AGENDA
The agenda for the meeting is adopted.
REPORTS
a) Secretary
The report is ready by secretary, Br. C. Baarda. The report was posted to the website prior
to the meeting and is accessible there. After the report is read,
Rev. Visscher makes a few comments about some of the statistics in the report,
especially noting the fact that although in the past three years there was only
one death, humanly speaking it is likely to change in the next three years.
b) Treasurer
Br. S. Vander Molen reads the treasurer's report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 [ed: also posted to the
website].
Discussion
In response to a question about the number of beneficiaries,
br. Vander Molen states that there are seventeen churches, including the seminary,
receiving benefits for a total of 21 beneficiaries.
Another question deals with early retirement. Response: full benefits are paid if the early
retirement is approved. Rev. Visscher
mentions that the issue of what age a minister should retire, i.e., 67 instead of 65, is to be determined by the churches. How should this be decided? The practice and tradition is that the retirement age for CPP purposes has been followed within the churches and thus by the Foundation.
Another questions deals with why a church is assessed an amount
per minister plus an amount for each communicant member, while a church without
a minister is assessed only the amount per communicant member. Response: in 1975 a committee was struck which came up
with the current assessment formula and that the churches have been quite content with such formula.
Br. Vander Molen next reviews and explains the financial statements
for the year 2012. In the ensuing discussion
a number of comments are made and questions raised.
The first one relates to the investment management fees; are
they in line? The response is that they
are arrived at by negotiation, and are based on the complexity of the funds
invested. We do not have many options
and Dundee, the investment company, has experience.
In response to a question as to the wisdom of investing in our
churches instead of where our investments currently are, Rev. Visscher mentions
that in the past it did not seem feasible that long-term loans to churches and schools within our communities seemed viable and accordingly was not pursued.
Another question deals with the increase in investments, if it
will be adequate to bring the fund up to where it should be. Br. Vander Molen responds that we
will continue to monitor the fund on a regular basis. There is also a recommendation that we consider
looking at the Harvest Foundation Fund as a place to invest funds. Response: we have looked at it in the past but can do
so again.
There is also a question as to whether the performance of our
fund is comparable to the returns others get. Br. A. Baartman, of the review committee,
responds that the review committee looked at other funds and found that our
returns were comparable to what those funds were getting.
Rev. Visscher, in response to a further question about how large
the fund should be, states that we do not have a threshold but that prior to
the recent Board-mandated increase in assessments [10% annually over five years starting in 2012] the fund was projected to deplete at a rate that the board
was uncomfortable with.
Foreign withholding taxes appear to be 30%, according to a comment
from one delegate. Br. S. Vander Molen
will check this out and if changes are required, they will be made. [ed:
30% rate subsequently determined to have
been charged in error; excess of 15% was refunded to us]
c) Review Committee Report
The report was sent to each one of the churches in November 2012
and the Board’s response was mailed to the churches in February 2013 along with
the agenda for this meeting. K. Veldkamp and A. Baartman are present on behalf of the review Committee (as well as being voting delegates).
Br.
K. Veldkamp
presents briefly on behalf of the Review Committee highlighting that in many respects there appears to be agreement, noting the elements on which there are different perspectives [considered below].
A material difference of view relates to governance. The review
committee recommends a national board of five or six members, whereas the Board’s proposal
is for adding an operational board. Section 40.1 of the constitution relating to modifying benefits in the view of the Revenue Committee requires reconsideration and there is desire of the Review Committee to ensure that the proper Biblical basis is being followed and considered in making investments. Auditing, as well, is
mentioned in the constitution and the review committee would like to see the audit
consist of a Review Engagement report, while the Board feels that the current “audit
practice” is adequate.
Rev. Visscher responds that the Board proposes as an alternative to a national board a small operating board,
with three representatives appointed by the Cloverdale Church council and three representatives from
the
Langley Church council
,
which operating board would report to the Board itself, which will continue to be the collective councils of the churches at Langley and Cloverdale. The review committee recommends a national
board with delegates from both the east and the west. The matter and the alternative forms of governance are discussed at length. In the discussion various delegates make their
views known. Some prefer a larger board,
while others feel that additional expertise is needed at the board level. Rev. Visscher responds that we can access expertise
whenever we need it. Br. S. Vander Molen
adds that we already have competent people on the board and the
administration committee and we use expert advice.
Br.
H. Berends, who served as board secretary until 2001, comments that what we
have now works fine and the three members from Cloverdale and three from Langley sounds like a
good idea; if more churches are involved decision making becomes more
difficult.
Additional discussion follows: What were the concerns that motivated a
review? The church of Toronto
proposed an extensive review which was supported and mandated by the members.
The Review Committee is of the view
that the current board is too large and things should be
streamlined. A national board would
be more representative. Another
delegate remarks that the fund is not large, and everything appears to be
working fine.
Some
would like the board to be more involved in investment decisions.
It is mentioned
that the
administration committee reports to the board; a delegate then asks if a
small board would replace the administration committee. Rev. Visscher responds that the councils
would nominate brothers to the small board, but the councils are ultimately
responsible.
A review of whether the establishment of an operating board could allow for the elimination of the administration committee will be considered.
Could churches be more involved by getting information out
to them? Again, mailings go out
regularly but the concern of the Board is whether letters and other information are actually read. It might help if churches designated
someone to keep abreast of the work that the Foundation does.
Various suggestions are made such as appointing a committee
to study the information and have each council appoint a member for maybe
nine years. In the end most delegates
still think that the best way to be accountable is having a local church be
in charge of the fund.
It is observed by one
that an operational board is a constitutional matter. Rev. Visscher states that if that is the
case, then approval will be sought. Rev.
Visscher reads letters from the Orangeville and Attercliffe churches. Both are in favour of the current
structure of the board and are not in favour of the complete restructuring
to a national board that the review committee recommends
After some further discussion, a motion is presented by Br.
L. Kampen: “That this meeting does
not favour a national board”. The
motion is seconded and then voted on.
In favour: 17, opposed: 11.
The following motion is then passed: "To move to an operational board of 7 members, drawn from local congregations which may involve members beyond the churches/councils of Cloverdale and Langley, to operate under the supervision of the councils of the CanRC churches of Cloverdale and Langley."
The matter of the audit is discussed next. Br. S. Vander Molen remarks, that
although the need for an audit is in the constitution, this is different
than a professional audit. If a professional
person can be obtained only one is needed, if it is lay people the requirement
is two (Sections 53 – 56 of the constitution). A review engagement would cost from 4 – 6
thousand dollars and an audit would cost more than that.
The review
committee is of the view that it comes down to good practice and section 53 – 56 is
only an opinion. Another delegate
remarks that the foundation records are not complex and do not require a
professional review engagement or audit.
A motion is made to "Maintain the present method of reviewing the records and practices without the need for a review engagement report". The motion carries.
Br.
A. Baartman asks if the Review Committee
recommendations, other than the two already discussed and decided, can be
finalized now. It is clear from the
discussion that follows that more time is needed to deal with everything in
the report. The chairman on behalf of the Board states that other than disagreement on the operational board and the need for a review engagement report, the Board and administration was "good to go" on the balance of the recommendations of the Review Committee.
Following further discussion the following motion was passed unanimously: "The meeting directs the Board to interact with and implement all of the recommendations set out in the review committee report [excluding the matter of the national board and the review engagement report], in consultation with the review committee, and to come with a definitive proposal for the next tri-annual meeting scheduled for 2016, or earlier".
CORRESPONDENCE
The letters from Burlington Ebenezer and Surrey Maranatha are
to go to the board for action. The letters
from Attercliffe and Orangeville have already been read.
OTHER MATTERS
There is no other business.
NEW BUSINESS
There is an inquiry whether there has been any recent communication with
our sister churches in the Netherlands or Australia. Response:
there has been no communication with
either the Dutch or Australian churches in recent years.
QUESTION PERIOD
Br.
Wade VanBostelen, the investment
counsellor retained by the Foundation, explains the fee structure, and the reason why we pay what we do.
We actually pay less than a fund of this
size should, because Dundee Wealth Management pools it with other funds.
There are no questions.
CLOSING
Rev Visscher thanks secretary Br.
C. Baarda and treasurer Br. S. Vander Molen, as well as the members of the review
committee. The
church of Carman West
and the ladies who provided breakfast, coffee and lunch are also thanked.
The meeting is adjourned after Br. K. Veldkamp closes in
prayer.
Chester Baarda, Secretary
Foundation for Superannuation
of the Canadian Reformed Churches
|
