$7-million Ghost Ranch give-away
on General Assembly Council docket
By James D. Berkley, The Layman, March 16, 2009
The Ghost Ranch Conference Center, a historic and remote facility near Abiquiu, N.M., may be given away by the Presbyterian Church (USA). Ghost Ranch is one of only two national Presbyterian conference centers.
Ghost Ranch in N.M. seeking to be hitched to another owner Ghost Ranch in N.M. seeking to be hitched to another ownerA 39-page proposal from the Ghost Ranch Governing Board will be on the docket of the General Assembly Council (GAC) when it meets in Louisville March 25–27. The proposal outlines the rationale for transferring ownership and operations from the national denomination to a separate nonprofit corporation’s board of directors. Ghost Ranch “fixed assets” were determined to be $6,939,118 in March 2008.
The General Assembly Council item of business recommends sending the proposal to a yet-to-be-named study committee, which will “work on a proposal to separately incorporate Ghost Ranch Conference Center and Ghost Ranch Plaza Resolana [in Santa Fe], and return to the September 2009 General Assembly Council meeting with a recommendation.” This wording appears to assume that the separation should take place, with the study group simply coming up with the details of a proposal to effect the transfer of assets.
Ghost Ranch, donated to the denomination in 1955, has seen better days in terms of denominational involvement and support, drifting from the center of Presbyterian mission in its purposes and programs. Denominational support “has steadily diminished to the point that the GAC has eliminated essentially all direct financial support for Ghost Ranch,” according to the governing board’s proposal. Ghost Ranch has also sought to be funded by government grants and unreligious groups that will not associate with a Christian denomination.
By being tied to the denomination, Ghost Ranch has significantly higher expenses for pensions, medical insurance, vacations, human resources, and other bureaucratic overhead, mandated by the PCUSA. It is expensive for Ghost Ranch to duplicate operations in remote New Mexico and in the Louisville headquarters.
The denomination has reduced its support for Ghost Ranch, due to tight financial times, but it has retained significant costs and liabilities for the operation. For some reason, although “Ghost Ranch’s operating budget is about 5 percent of the annual PCUSA budget,” representatives from Ghost Ranch have been told that “its needs take up close to 20 percent of HR and accounting resources of the GAC,” according to the Ghost Ranch Governing Board’s proposal.
Some would consider it a good idea to further separate the Presbyterian Church (USA) from the increasingly divergent agenda of Ghost Ranch (see page 5 of The Layman). Programming at Ghost Ranch takes a variety of progressive forms, some of which cause concern for the larger conservative core of the denomination. If Ghost Ranch continues its trajectory toward being more of an interfaith and secularized camp, it would make sense for the PCUSA to distance itself from a troubling trajectory and no longer support it.
The GAC will need to decide first if it should appoint the study committee and second if the study committee is to consider whether to recommend giving away the denominational assets or just how to do it. The March meeting will determine the recommended assignment for the study committee.
It remains unclear, however, why the General Assembly Council appears to be content with transferring millions of dollars of denominational assets to an independent nonprofit corporation—property that, according to the much-quoted G-8.0201, is “held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (USA).”
The same controversial trust clause that applies to congregational property applies equally to Ghost Ranch property. However, while one hand of the denominational leadership is holding on to congregational property for dear life and instigating costly and rancorous secular legal processes to do so, the other hand seems content to part amicably with $7 million in Ghost Ranch assets.
Such a transfer might be a wise and equitable decision in the Ghost Ranch case. But if it is, the generosity precedent would likewise need to apply to congregations that can also make wise and equitable arguments for why their assets ought to be conveyed to the party – the congregation – that can best put the property to use to serve our Lord.