I encourage readers to read the previous posts in this blog series: Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV.
Alternatives
As I noted at the beginning of this blog post, the Camping Board has recently clarified that financial concerns were not primary in their decision making process. However, they have also cited financial concerns in each of their communications about the decision. So, even if, as I have suggested, their are problems with the rest of the Camping Board’s process, does the economic situation make their decision necessary?
Financial concerns should never be the measure of our ministries. But it would also be irresponsible not to take account of our fiscal house. The question is: how economically troubled are Missouri’s United Methodist Camps?
Unfortunately, the communications from the Camping Board have not made the answer to that question clear. The Camping Board has reported the following:
- $435,000 in apportionments is currently devoted to our camping ministries per year.
- Last year, taking the above apportionments into account, the four camps in the Missouri Annual Conference ran a deficit of $48,428.
- This deficit is projected to rise over coming years to $175,000. (Presumably, this is projected on the basis of the assumption that no action is taken in relation to the Annual Conference’s camping ministries.)
- The four camping facilities are in need of renovation and capital investment. Exactly how much is required is not clear. Two issues obscure the accounting:
- First, the number reported varies in different communications. In their original announcement, the Camping board wrote that “our site directors reported to the Camping and Retreat Board earlier this year a projected need of $2,607,000 …” By the time that the October issue of The Missouri Methodist came out, this number seems to have been rounded up (?) by roughly $400,000 to make it “close to $3 million.”
- Second, it is not clear what it means to claim that this sum is “necessary.” In the original announcement and in The Missouri Methodist, the Camping Board reported that this sum was required for “maintenance and property improvements in order to remain competitive for the future.” However, in their video presentation, the head of the Camping Board indicates that the site directors were asked three different questions: “what are the immediate things that need to get fixed? What things would you like to see get fixed? And then, kind of this visioning question. In the next three to five years what would be your dreams?” (34:45) The Camping Board indicated that the answer to the first question produced “an amount that was quite small.” In the following discussion, members of the Camping Board go on to conflate the “dream” number with “what would be necessary to keep us competitive.” Now, it seems to me that these two questions (“How much could you dream of doing?” and “How much would keep you competitive?”) are two quite different questions. And, given that it appears that the camp director were asked the question of what they could dream, and not what would keep them competitive, I don’t think we know the answer to the latter question.
So, given the above information, how bad is the situation? Are the camping facilities, to borrow a phrase from a friend, “an albatross around the neck of the Annual Conference”? Well, the Camping Board has not given us much to go on here, but there are reasons to think that the situation is not that bad at all.
The information that the Camping Board has presented us covers all four Missouri Annual Conference Camp’s together. The way that the information is presented suggests that there are only two options: (1) keep everything exactly as it is or (2) close down all four camps. But why are these the two options? Even critics of the Camping Board are not advocating leaving everything exactly the same. So why could we not explore other alternatives?
As it turns out, while the four camps together run at a deficit, there is reason to think that at least some of the camps independently are operating in the black. Take for instance a publicly accessible 2009-2010 financial report on Wilderness Retreat Development Center, one of the Conference’s camping facilities. According to this report, the camp had a secure financial standing at the time. In fact, the camp’s assets increased significantly over the two year period covered. Unless things have changed radically in the last four years, it seems most probable that Wilderness Retreat is still operating in the black. This immediately raises the question, if some of the camps are operating without a deficit in the current situation why would the Conference not wish to retain them?
The Camping Board has pointed out that if we don’t do anything to renovate our Camping ministries they are, over the long term, unsustainable. They have correctly noted that we need to improve management and usage of our camping facilities. What the Camping Board has not done is to adequately articulate why the only viable option is to eliminate all four camps and switch exclusively to non-facility based camping ministries.
While the Camping Board has provided some data on finances on Camping facilities in general, an adequate respectful discussion of the alternatives requires that the Camping Board answer further questions. Do all camps individually function at a deficit? Is the deficit equally distributed? Do some of our camps function at a “profitable” level? If so, why would there be a need to eliminate those camps? Why would it not be possible to sell some of the camps and invest proceeds in the remaining ones? How much capital investment would be necessary to keep one, or two, or three of our camping facilities “competitive”? How much, if any, of an increase in apportionments would be necessary to keep and improve one, or two, or three of the camps? Is there a way to outsource the management of some of our camps without abandoning entirely their place in our connexion? Without answers to these questions, it is impossible to adequately assess the financial status of the Annual Conference’s camping facilities, and thus assess alternatives to the Camping Board’s proposal.
What is striking in retrospect is the lack of exploration of how we might preserve some of our camping facilities. As other areas of my inquiry have suggested, it appears that from very early on in the Camping Board’s process it had already been determined that keeping camping facilities was not a goal of the Board. For many of us who have benefited greatly from our experiences at United Methodist camping facilities, including many (like myself) who received calls from God while at these camping facilities, such a lack of exploration reflects an undervaluing of our camping facilities.
———-
I conclude this blog series with Part VI. Please tolla lege!
Eremitic Musings 
Pingback: A Critique of the Missouri UM Camping Board, Part IV: Connexionalism and Congregationalism | Eremitic Musings
I served as an event director at Camp Jo-Ota from 2007-20012. The facilities are excellent: a new air-conditioned dining hall about 5 years ago, renovated and air-conditioned cabins, and an excellent challenge/team-building course, just to name a few. My church when I was laity (Palmyra) averages 110 in worship and has given $85,000 cash and many person-hours to the camp over the last 5 years.
The Camping and Retreat Ministries budget is only 5% of the Annual Conference budget. If it was increased to 6% the “deficit” would be erased.
The Baptists and Presbyterians and others? operate resident camps in Missouri. I like to think Methodists can be as excellent in mission opportunities, management, and generosity.
Good points Tom!
When the camps were moved to be under the umbrella of the Conference (rather than being independent camps) several years ago, the Conference took the responsibility of certain lines in the budget, including the Site Director salaries and insurance for the camps. “Conference Subsidy” amounts for urgent, necessary improvements to camps (for example, a broken dam) are also included in the total expenses. These subsidies from the Conference came to $72,270 for this year…The entire deficit is 67% of this single line item (damn that dam breaking!). Because this money was paid out of the Conference, not the camp operating budget, the camps were under the impression they were operating in the black with their revenues and the apportionment they receive as ministries of the Conference. If your church was under the impression you were operating in the black, you would make no drastic changes to your operation to increase revenue and decrease expenses. The same with these camps; you don’t know what you don’t know. Looking for strategies to reorganize budgets, centralize bookkeeping, and increase revenue is another option that the board neglected to look into. (The Conference Subsidy number is from the financial report given out by the Conference at the Forum held in Liberty)
The majority of the projected increase in deficit is attributed to a rise in insurance premiums (according to the open board meeting on September 15), which is an unfortunate and uncontrollable circumstance that should not be used to eliminate a ministry. If health insurance for Conference employees rises, the Conference would find a way to make it work, not eliminate the issue by getting rid of all full-time positions.
The “projected need” number has been thrown around a lot. What information is not given with that number is $1,000,000 of that total is for a new dining hall at Wilderness, a project which had already been receiving private donations. The money was being raised by donors, the camp was not seeking for the entire project to be funded by the Conference. In fact, a large portion of the cost had already been raised before the announcement. When you take that million out of the projected need, it’s a very feasible number for four sites over a 5 year period – $80,000 per year per camp for the original number, and $100,000 per year per camp for the “rounded up” number. In the camping world, this number is extremely low for a 5 year projection of improvements to your facilities to keep them competitive.
Thank you for writing these blogs. You are doing a fabulous job of pointing out logical issues with so many different pieces of the decision, and emphasizing that more research, thought, and exploration of options are needed. I hope your voice is heard loud and clear.
Thanks for all of that information! This is exactly the kind of stuff we need to think through these issues more carefully!
I totally agree! Ha e they ever really set down and looked at the budget to see what is available? I am on a non_profit board an am Pre s identity. We do that about every time.e we have an unexpected increase on something like insurance, work on a vehicle and etc. We can always AMEND the budget to cover it!!!!! Why can’t our officials do the same?
You should find out just how much money has been given to that new dining hall and they should be looking at that all the time since it is a large line item. What about Grants and has anyone spent anytime trying to see if there are any available???????
It seems there are Grants for just about every thing you just have to write them and submit them.
This just hasn’t been thought through at all. What kind of money during did Rev. Drake spend when he was saying g here had worked on this for two years and had flown all over the U.S. looking at other camps???? Has that been in the budget for two years or was it just considered misc? We need to publish a financial report for all the church’s are aware of what our money is going for!!!!!
I don’t mean to sound so harsh but we must do more work to inform the people just where there money is going! SOMEONE SURELY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SEE TO IT ALL HAS A CHANCH TO SEE OUR FINANCIALS. We do have some pretty intelligent people in the Missouri United Churchs! Our church sure has to live on a budget to live up to!!
Praying for all of us and our UNITED METHODIST CHURCH.
I totally agree! Have they ever really set down and looked at the budget to see what is available? I am on a non_profit board an am Pre s identity. We do that about every time.e we have an unexpected increase on something like insurance, work on a vehicle and etc. We can always AMEND the budget to cover it!!!!! Why can’t our officials do the same?
You should find out just how much money has been given to that new dining hall and they should be looking at that all the time since it is a large line item. What about Grants and has anyone spent anytime trying to see if there are any available???????
It seems there are Grants for just about every thing you just have to write them and submit them.
This just hasn’t been thought through at all. What kind of money during did Rev. Drake spend when he was saying g here had worked on this for two years and had flown all over the U.S. looking at other camps???? Has that been in the budget for two years or was it just considered misc? We need to publish a financial report for all the church’s are aware of what our money is going for!!!!!
I don’t mean to sound so harsh but we must do more work to inform the people just where there money is going! SOMEONE SURELY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SEE TO IT ALL HAS A CHANCH TO SEE OUR FINANCIALS. We do have some pretty intelligent people in the Missouri United Churchs! Our church sure has to live on a budget to live up to!!
Praying for all of us and our UNITED METHODIST CHURCH.
Thank you for writing these, our camps are an important part of our mission to youth and deserve to be funded and retained.
Dr. Carnahan, these blog posts have served to name several key issues, from the initial actions take under the misnomer of “proposals”, to the congregationalism which lies at the root of this course of action. What seems most pertinent, though, will be a clear value to camps owned by our Conference as compared to renting space in other facilities.
In searching for another home for a camp that has over 40 years of growing disciples for Christ, this may be difficult to quantify. However, it’s clear in our contacts with other denominational camps we will always be at the whim of their denominational needs requiring that our camps be scheduled at their convenience and capacity, not when it’s best for our campers. “For Profit” camps appear to come at a higher cost per camper and have shown, so far, to have scheduling issues as well. Camps that would survive this congregational environment lacking any central birthing place for new camps will require a strong leadership team, a dynamic that I fear without a strong commitment at the Conference level would continue to reduce opportunities for our youth and young adults to have the same experiences we enjoyed.
But most important, our camps offer a mission opportunity that already exists and has a rich history for local churches to reach out to this “Next Generation” in ways that we can only do together as you pointed out in your comments on the connexion. In speaking with a site director for another denomination’s facility, she spoke of a missional vision that fueled their vision. Our facilities, from our church buildings to our Conference offices, are missional tools. It would be a shame to lose four of these with so little consideration given to their past, present, and future witness.
Pingback: A Critique of the Missouri UM Camping Board, Part VI: Where to now? | Eremitic Musings
Thank you again for our voice.
It is interesting to note that Blue Mountain is, as of Jan 2012, completely debt free. In that, we owed nothing on any buildings, land, projects…etc. Updates were done ‘out of pocket’ from our local bank account. The most expensive thing we pay on from our end is a brand new lawn mower, an office copy machine, and small items like that.
At Blue Mountain, as of Sept 3, 2014 when our bank account was said to have been taken control of by the conference office, we had over $80,000 in the bank – not including any money from of our upcoming retreat groups from that point on. This is information that has always been openly given to our former Site Committee members that I don’t feel bad about speaking of aloud. Each of the 4 camps ran in the black this year. Some of us with sizable gains, others, like Wilderness with even more (raised from capitol campaigns – theirs for their dining hall). We wonder how these monies factor into the reported deficit. However, as reported, a good deal of money went into insurance for the camp, insurance for the campers, Christina’s salary, and her health benefits. It wasn’t until this summer (in the middle of our camping season) that other full time employees at the camps also went onto the conference health insurance policy. Our bank accounts and how we were to pay for and handle money was also rolled over, staggering through the summer camp season.
We also, at Blue Mountain, were never aloud to do ANY fund raising. This is unheard of in the Camp & Retreat Ministry. We were never aloud to do ANY capitol campaigns for any reasons. Even if we desired to raise funds to make improvements, we were not allowed to do so. Any improvements we did relied heavily on the mission and work project groups doing them. For other projects, say for instance, finishing the bottom of our dining hall, we took out from the EXTRA we had in our account + what work groups were willing to donate for that particular project. But we had several churches lined up to “adopt” different facilities, in order to keep them up to being the very best we could make them.
As far as the monies needed to remain competitive with other camps, there were certain items I personally listed (I did our assessment by myself in full), that were strictly from a dream list. Other items, like a swimming pool, I felt were needed to remain competitive – but, if I had known how the list would be used, I would have not listed such items. Given 2 years and the ability to raise funds, we would have had plenty of operating money to build a phenomenal swimming facility. The UMM had designated funds to be put towards a new hotel-style facility next to our dinning hall, and were willing to begin that project but I asked them to hold off (they had roughly 1/3 of the cost, and if we would allow it to grow to having 1/2 the cost, I could write for a grant for the other 1/2). That was part of our dream list – what our users had told us they would like to see here.
What was needed here was very, very little. Redo bathrooms here and there. A $8,500 update to our lagoon treatment facility so we no longer had to report to DNR (the facility works just fine as it is now – no repairs needed). Patch a roof (we currently have 2 pallets of unused shingles for such a thing). Currently we are painting the dining hall deck (previous inferior paint on untreated wood doesn’t bode well in SE MO). As far as the overall facilities and campsite here are concerned – We have traveled all around the country and visited a large number of camp sites, spoken with an even greater number of other camp directors, and what we have here at BMC is a fantastic site with wonderful facilities. Other camps would love and dream of having a site like this. We’re sorry that others feel like it is not up to their particular standards – BMC is not Disney World, it is not running off of a million dollar budget. We have a fairly small budget and operate well off of it. The potential for this site is incredible, limited only by our imaginations and the ability to do so from our superiors.
But it was a growing camp, and produced a very large number of Christian leaders over the decades. We were well on our way in producing even more leaders, and the culture had begun to move in the right direction for that. Does this produce any measurables? That depends on what your idea of a measurable is. Do you wait and poll the next generation 10yrs from now to tally a number of leaders produced at camp as opposed to a traditional church setting? Do you have every camper fill out a questionnaire before they leave the site to see whether or not they accepted CHRIST that week, or accepted a call to ministry (we already do that)? Mine happens to be stored up in HEAVEN, not quantifiable while here on earth. How many leaders are produced from the 20% we reportedly ministered to? How about the countless others not included in that 20% because they were outside of our particular denomination? Other conferences and many other directors (nationwide I have heard from 7 other conferences and numerous other directors/ UM employees from New York to Florida to California to Virginia to Ohio to Idaho to Tennessee) who find what is happening here “disturbing”.
I pray that this site may become a working camp again soon. I look forward in coming back to find out in the coming years.
Great information. Now, it seems to me, the question is: How do we communicate this type of information to the Annual Conference clergy and lay members so that a majority of them will not vote to sell the properties? What are the thoughts on this?
The SaveMOUMCamps web site and Facebook page seem to have become a good central location, linking this blog and others. Spread the word.
Pingback: Three of Missouri’s Four United Methodist Camps were Functioning in the Black | The Eremitic Family Man
Pingback: Three of Missouri’s Four United Methodist Camps were Functioning in the Black | Eremitic Musings