Pensions Board Video Intensifies Divestment Debate

February 11, 2016

2:21 PM

Screen capture by Fossil Free UMC

Divestment Video

A screen capture of a frame from the divestment video prepared for Central Conference delegates by the General Board of Pension and Health Benefits.

UPDATE: According to a Feb. 15 report by Heather Hahn of United Methodist News Service, "the pension board altered the text on the video on Feb. 11 to say 'We do not support forced divestment” and “We oppose divestment petitions.” The video’s narration remains entirely the same."

Ms. Hahn also contacted the Rev. L. Fitzgerald “Gere” Reist II, secretary of the General Conference, who echoed Phillips’ misgivings about the pension board’s initial video. “The presentation came across to me as too directive and insufficiently informative,” he said. “I did not experience it as persuasive.”

ORIGINAL UM INSIGHT FEB. 12 ARTICLE BEGINS HERE

For the second time in as many months, the General Board of Pension and Health Benefits has come under fire for its policy of resisting divestment from controversial companies while attempting socially responsible change as a shareholder.

In a Feb. 8 blog post titled "This Is Not Okay; UM Pension Board Video Crosses the Line," the Rev. Jenny Phillips, coordinator of Fossil Free UMC, alleges that a video aimed at General Conference delegates from regions outside the United States unduly pressures them to reject divestment from petroleum companies and related industries. The Pensions Board's video, featuring the agency's top executive Barbara Boigegrain, is posted on Fossil Free's blog.

According to Fossil Free UMC's website, the General Board of Pension and Health Benefits has nearly $600 million invested in the fossil fuel companies around the world. Although it sold off some of its coal holdings in early 2015, the pensions board currently is invested 31 of the top 100 coal companies and 80 of the top 100 oil and gas companies.

In a press release the day after the blog posting, Rev. Phillips commented: “Many of the church's Central Conferences are located in countries that are acutely vulnerable to climate change. The United Methodist Church has a moral duty to engage delegates worldwide in active discernment on the church's response to the climate crisis. General agency presentations on this—and on all key issues facing the church—should empower delegates with information, not imperatives.”

In response to a telephone inquiry from United Methodist Insight, M. Colette Nies, managing director of communications for the Pensions Board, issued the following statement via email:

"The landing page for the Fossil Free UMC website is an appeal that directly targets our agency and seeks divestment. Our video simply responds by stating our position that we do not think such divestment action would be prudent.

"Our message is not unique for Central Conference delegates. We have been asking U.S. delegations to consider that divestment is not the only way, and we believe not the best way to combat climate change, to consider our perspective, and to allow us to continue the engagement work that we believe will make a greater difference than walking away.

"[The video wasn't shown at the Jan. 20-22 Pre-General Conference Briefing in Portland, Ore., because] We had our sustainable investment expert, [Kirsty Jenkinson] in the room for the U.S. pre-conference briefing and to field questions, but it would be difficult for us to physically send her to all the central conference briefings around the world; hence the video message." [Editor's note: Video of the session on social issues that includes the divestment question has been posted on YouTube].

Seattle-based Fossil Free UMC formed in 2015 to promote its petroleum-divestment legislation to the 2016 General Conference. The group has submitted petitions calling on delegates to amend the Book of Discipline to require all United Methodist boards and agencies to sell off or avoid investments in companies that produce petroleum, coal and natural gas:

Fossil Free UMC describes itself and its objectives on its website:

"We are a movement of United Methodists who recognize that it is wrong for The United Methodist Church to profit from wrecking the planet. Indeed, profiting from fossil fuel companies undermines the very ministries that our investments are meant to support.

"Our mission is to convince the General Board of Pension and Health Benefits of The United Methodist Church to divest from fossil fuel companies and to reinvest in clean energy companies, and to add coal, petroleum and natural gas to the list of socially responsible investment screens in the Book of Discipline and Book of Resolutions."

In January, the pensions board drew fire from pro-Israel groups – and praise from pro-divestment lobbies such as United Methodist Kairos Response – when it announced it would not invest in five Israeli-owned banks that help to fund Israeli settlements in the Palestinian Authority. The announcement explained that the decision stemmed from new guidelines for socially responsible investing based in part of the United States Declaration of Human Rights. The guidelines were developed with the pensions board's financial adviser, Wespath.

Overall, the pension and health benefits board manages some $20 billion in asserts for retired United Methodist clergy and lay church employees. The agency recently ranked as the 10th largest investor among the world's top 500 investors.

The investment section of its website describes the agency's investment principles and tracks profit-and-loss trends among its major funds. In general, the board states that it "seeks to avoid investing in companies that produce and/or provide products and services that are not aligned with United Methodist values. Our six exclusions relate to: alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, adult entertainment, weapons, gambling and privately-owned correctional facilities."

Veteran religion journalist Cynthia B. Astle is Founder and Editor of United Methodist Insight.

Comments (2)

Comment Feed

GBOPHB has retracted the original video and published an edited version

I have just discovered that in apparent response to the controversy, the GBOPHB has removed their original video (of which I have a downloaded copy), and replaced it with a new version which removes three graphical text overlays that were the most obvious examples of telling the central conference delegates how to vote. One was a red circle with a slash through "FORCED DIVESTMENT" that previously appeared above the logos of Caterpillar, HP, and Motorola. Also removed were the following two text overlays: "DO NOT vote for divestment" and "DO NOT vote to limit investment." I believe, however, that the original version has already been shown to a number of the central conference delegates, but I'm not sure how many will see the new vs. the old versions of their video. The begs the question that there was nothing wrong with the original presentation, then why were changes made?

David Topping more than 10 years ago

US vs Central Conference presentations

I've expressed the opinion that the video shown to central conference delegates crosses a line from presenting useful information and the opinion of the GBOPHB to telling them how to vote, which many of us consider to be inappropriate. Thanks to the link to the video of the presentation on Resolutions and Issues on Social Responsibility from the US event, it's clear that the Board's spokesperson (Colette Nies) is dissembling in her statement above.

During her 11-minute presentation to a nearly-empty room (starting at about 30' into the video), Ms. Jenkinson expressed her personal hope that the topics of human rights and climate change and their connection to UMC investment practices be thoroughly discussed at GC and that ways are found for them to continue to engage with the companies rather than to have to walk away, but she didn't even come close to urging delegates to specifically vote against any of the divestment petitions, as was most clearly done in the controversial video. This, my friends, is not a trivial difference, and is the reason for the current controversy. If after watching both videos, you can't see the extreme difference in the nature of the presentations, I suggest you keep watching until you can, because it's blatantly obvious.

David Topping more than 10 years ago