RussellHltn wrote:Would it be fair to say that the FM groups are under budget pressure and the original 5-year plan is getting spread out?
That's somewhat reasonable, although in the many areas where the only policy at this point is to replace on failure, "getting spread out" seems a bit misleading.
RussellHltn wrote:As of yet, I haven't seen any new official policy, but too many groups came up with a 3-year spread to make me think it was coincidence.
I've seen a total of 2 such posts (one in Ohio, one simply in US), plus your posts claiming that it is a widespread policy. I can't find any post from you claiming that your local FM group has that policy; but if that is the case, that would make 3. I have no way of knowing if the two (or three) posts were from people in the same area, whereas the 5 "replace on failure" posts are from Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Nebraska, and Florida. That would be at least 4 and probably 5 different FM areas. That
is indeed too many to be a coincidence.
But the evidence is pretty thin for "too many groups" having the 3-year spread policy. For all we can tell from the data, there is one FM area in the whole church with the 3-year spread policy. But with 5 on one side, and 1 or 2, possibly 3 on the other side, no one could reasonably conclude that the policy used in the vast majority of cases is an exception.