PANA Institute for Leadership Development

The PSR faculty, the executive committee of the Board of Trustees, and the administration are deeply saddened to announce the decision to suspend operations of PANA for up to a year, which includes the painful news that the current PANA staff will be laid off. We have concluded that the PANA Institute needs a substantial period of discussion, re-visioning, and evaluation in order to return to financial and structural sustainability, and that the best alternative in this terribly difficult situation is to suspend the work and programming of PANA for six months to one year. The suspension will go into effect on August 21, 2009.

PANA remains an essential element of PSR’s vision of progressive Christianity and we are determined that a renewed and vital PANA Institute will return to full health and programming within the next year.

In order to help the community more fully understand this decision, we are enclosing a series of questions that have been asked over the past few weeks, with answers:

Why hasn’t PSR taken more time to find alternatives to staff layoffs?
The faculty considered the possibility of a short-term, intensive effort, using outside consultants, to restructure the PANA program and staff in ways that would be sustainable for the long haul. After careful consideration, the faculty concluded that, because of the number of issues PANA faces, a longer period of time would be needed.

Why is the faculty involved in making decisions about PANA’s future?
PANA was created by the faculty as a PSR center and has, from the beginning, been accountable to both the faculty and the API community. All of PSR’s academic programs are overseen by the faculty, and   the centers’ executive directors are members of the faculty.

Why has PSR suspended PANA’s operations when there still appear to be funds available?
It is true that there are some funds still available from the Lilly grant supporting R2W. That fund balance was to be matched by new gifts and in-kind contributions.  We have not been successful in raising those matching funds and do not see any realistic prospect of doing so.  Spending that money without raising the matching funds would endanger our relationship with Lilly. Most of the larger Lilly-funded youth programs are in a similar situation. To continue R2W in its current form would require us to divert financial resources from other PSR programs or contribute further to PANA’s deficit. The 2009-2010 PSR operating budget included operational support for PANA, and the president recommended  a transfer of $120,000 to PANA’s endowment. Although some have suggested using portions of this endowment money for operations, to do so would erode the future value of that endowment.

What is the actual PANA deficit?
As of June 30, PANA’s cumulative general operating deficit was $303,429. It is growing every day. The growing deficit is the reason for the staff layoffs.

Why are PANA staff’s positions being cut while other parts of PSR are not?
From the beginning PSR’s centers (PANA and CLGS) have been funded by outside gifts and grants. They have not been supported by the PSR operating budget. In good financial times this was an advantage for the centers, which were able to expand more rapidly than other PSR programs. However, the dependence on “soft money” has made the centers exceptionally vulnerable during this period of economic recession.

What happens next?
The dean and the president, working with the faculty, the board and other stakeholders, will initiate a process of re-visioning and restructuring so that a sustainable PANA program can be re-started in six to twelve months.  This process will probably involve an outside consultant.  PSR’s API faculty will play a key leadership role.  Closer relationships with the GTU’s Asia Partnership Project may be explored. Consistent with PSR personnel policies, we will do all that we can to support PANA staff as they seek other employment.

Did PSR make any mistakes in the process that has led to the suspension of programs?
Certainly. Mistakes have been made in the past several months. Bill McKinney has acknowledged his failure to intervene as internal conflicts emerged within the PANA community. The administration was late in preparing budget reports and identifying problems in fund-raising for R2W. Until recently, the oversight committee was not as active and assertive as it ought to have been. PANA has given insufficient attention to its own responsibility for fund-raising and budget management. The faculty and board have been less aware of PANA’s work than they should have been. One of the goals for the re-visioning process must be identifying mistakes that have been made and building a renewed PANA that will avoid such mistakes in the future.