Discontinuation of AMFA categories

Discuss questions around local unit policies for budgeting, reconciling, etc. This forum should not contain specific financial or membership information.
User avatar
mkmurray
Senior Member
Posts: 3266
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Re: Discontinuation of AMFA categories

#31

Post by mkmurray »

Apart from the unconfirmed theories of possible decommission/discouragement of reliance on fundraisers, we do know the original announcement indicated a need for more flexibility for Church leadership to determine the best usage for general donations (not Tithing and Fast Offerings); though perhaps that's only relevant at the level of Church headquarters and not all the way down at the local level?

Either way, the one lingering question I have is around the funds that are formally from AMFA categories and if their original specific donation purpose needs to still be honored? Many of us have talked about having sub-categories in order to properly track how these funds are different/separate from normal budget funds, which my local unit has chosen to do thus far. However, I can't deny that official guidance does indicate that is merely one optional way to do it.

The fact of the matter is that the funds are now in budget and that appears to be the most critical result in decommissioning AMFA. A recent conversation with my financial auditor and stake clerk seem to indicate that perhaps these legacy funds can/should now be used and repurposed according to Bishop discretion just like any other budget funds. Is this accurate? Are we no longer required to track original purpose of AMFA funds and then utilize only for that purpose? Is that retroactive for any current balance of former AMFA funds, or more of a "from now on" thing?
eblood66
Senior Member
Posts: 3907
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Cumming, GA, USA

Re: Discontinuation of AMFA categories

#32

Post by eblood66 »

mkmurray wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 12:59 pmThe fact of the matter is that the funds are now in budget and that appears to be the most critical result in decommissioning AMFA. A recent conversation with my financial auditor and stake clerk seem to indicate that perhaps these legacy funds can/should now be used and repurposed according to Bishop discretion just like any other budget funds. Is this accurate? Are we no longer required to track original purpose of AMFA funds and then utilize only for that purpose? Is that retroactive for any current balance of former AMFA funds, or more of a "from now on" thing?
I haven't seen anything addressing how those funds can or should be used now that they are in budget. And as far as I know all the policy documents regarding rules for the Other accounts have been removed. So right now (again as far as I know), written policy is silent on the issue.

What we do know that that we should not deposit anything in budget other than camp payments and funds from camp fundraisers (i.e. the FAQs on the Discontinuation of “Authorized Member Financed Activities” Category). Camp payments and fundraisers can be deposited in budget but so far we haven't been told anything about making sure they are used only for camp.
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 34384
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: Discontinuation of AMFA categories

#33

Post by russellhltn »

Out of an abundance of caution, I'd consider the old polices to still be in place. Mostly because it's easier to mingle the funds later than the try to separate them once they've been mingled and allocated (or even spent).
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
kjheinz
New Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:04 am
Location: Tacoma, WA, USA

Re: Discontinuation of AMFA categories

#34

Post by kjheinz »

russellhltn wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:33 pm Out of an abundance of caution, I'd consider the old polices to still be in place. Mostly because it's easier to mingle the funds later than the try to separate them once they've been mingled and allocated (or even spent).
I totally agree with this statement. Until we get more guidance, it is better to be safe then sorry.
barneja
New Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:32 am

Re: Discontinuation of AMFA categories

#35

Post by barneja »

Couple of comments:

1) I like the ability to have a sub account under YM and YW for tracking Camp payments and Camp spending. Now the YW President can simply look at her YW budget and see where she is - I don’t have to say “this is budget and this is ‘Other’.”

2) As for online - is it wrong to have a member contribute online - say to ‘Ward Missionary’ and then send a text to the ward clerk saying they intended the contribution to hit YM High Adventure Camp - and then the ward clerk going into the online donation and changing it to the High Adventure Camp along with proper documentation (ie, copy of text)? That makes the member’s contribution online - it does complicate the ward clerk’s job though because now they have to document the paper trail.

I had a couple of members last year hit a donation to ‘Other’ online last year - something like Book of Mormon or whatever was under the General Church’s Other. Then they texted me and said they couldn’t find the YW Camp under Other, but they did a contribution anyway under Other. I had to go in and fix it.

Is it wrong to have a member hit the wrong category and have the ward clerk fix it? Not looking for a knee jerk ‘oh no no’ reaction. The Church doesn’t have the ability to hit Other (now Budget) directly from online - is this a workaround or something we would get sent to purgatory over?
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 34384
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: Discontinuation of AMFA categories

#36

Post by russellhltn »

barneja wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 3:21 pm 1) I like the ability to have a sub account under YM and YW for tracking Camp payments and Camp spending. Now the YW President can simply look at her YW budget and see where she is - I don’t have to say “this is budget and this is ‘Other’.”
Unless the policy has changed, they still can't use camp money for other YM activities. As such, the bottom line total is deceptive. Until further guidance, I think it's better to have two separate ones. Otherwise, the leader may put you in the uncomfortable position of trying to pay general activities out of camp funds.

barneja wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 3:21 pmIs it wrong to have a member hit the wrong category and have the ward clerk fix it? Not looking for a knee jerk ‘oh no no’ reaction. The Church doesn’t have the ability to hit Other (now Budget) directly from online - is this a workaround or something we would get sent to purgatory over?
I don't have an issue with an honest mistake, but I wouldn't encourage it. If abased, it will end. Just like how the church cracked down on units that had way too many "clerks" to grant LCR access to people who shouldn't have had access.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
eblood66
Senior Member
Posts: 3907
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Cumming, GA, USA

Re: Discontinuation of AMFA categories

#37

Post by eblood66 »

barneja wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 3:21 pmIs it wrong to have a member hit the wrong category and have the ward clerk fix it? Not looking for a knee jerk ‘oh no no’ reaction. The Church doesn’t have the ability to hit Other (now Budget) directly from online - is this a workaround or something we would get sent to purgatory over?
There was a thread about doing this a while back which included responses from one of the church developers: https://tech.churchofjesuschrist.org/fo ... 34#p223934

Basically, they know that there are units doing this but it isn't approved (but so far there hasn't been any official message about it). So far they haven't decided to block the ability but it might happen if it's abused. I suspect that if they have to do that, then it will make it harder for clerks to correct real mistakes.
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 34384
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: Discontinuation of AMFA categories

#38

Post by russellhltn »

It's going to get ugly if a member makes a "camp" donation electronically and it ends up going somewhere else and can't be fixed. In the past, the fixes have rolled out without notice.

So to suggest using it could put you in a bad position if it turns out to be disabled.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
User avatar
mkmurray
Senior Member
Posts: 3266
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Re: Discontinuation of AMFA categories

#39

Post by mkmurray »

barneja wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 3:21 pm Is it wrong to have a member hit the wrong category and have the ward clerk fix it? Not looking for a knee jerk ‘oh no no’ reaction. The Church doesn’t have the ability to hit Other (now Budget) directly from online - is this a workaround or something we would get sent to purgatory over?
Disclaimer: I am not a tax expert nor do I represent the Church on this policy guidance; nor do I even have 2nd-hand knowledge about any intention or purpose of the current state of these financial policies and software features.

----------

I do have a theory based on previous policy and some of the recent announcements and category modifications. I believe the challenge the Church faces is differentiating between money that is given as an offering donation vs. money that is paid for services rendered. I think this distinction is critical for tax purposes and these two means of financial contribution are intended to be kept separate for that reason, the former being tax deductible and the latter not being so.

I believe that is why there was originally an "Other" category kept completely separate from all other budget categories. However as we've seen recently, it seems the ever-changing needs for the Church require more flexibility for central Church leadership (and perhaps local leadership?) to utilize funds in less restrictive protocols and purposes. I think that is why there is renewed messaging around free-will offerings being given to the Church and used according to its sole discretion, and also why there are condensed, more general, and higher-level categories.

More specifically to online, electronic payments vs. physical envelopes handled locally, it appears to me intentional that the Church hasn't created a way to pay for local activity funding online (perhaps for tax status differentiation purposes?). Of all the contributions you pay online via the Church's website, those funds are centrally received and managed and often used for purposes much larger than your local unit level. This would even include the subsidized monthly missionary payment program as well, since it's not a direct correlation between the exact money you send and how much your specific missionary is then allotted wherever they are in the world. Perhaps one exception to this is Fast Offerings, but even then it seems the local balances allotted to your unit appear to flow in and out of its account based on local needs as well as excess funds.

For this reason, I believe that the Church intentionally left off Authorized Member Financed Activities from the online portal. First, to make it clear it is a physical payment made only at the local unit level for services rendered, not a true donation and therefore not tax deductible. And second, a reminder that such approved activities should be first paid for by available local budget funds as much as possible before asking ward members to make a supplementary payment. I wouldn't be surprised if the Church soon further reminds us of that second point and tells us to live a little more within our means instead of ever year expecting an annual fundraiser for those expensive camps and high adventures we sometimes push the limits on. Certainly a balance to strike somewhere in there; but if we aren't more prudent I could see the privilege being further restricted in the future?

Hopefully these thoughts are useful context. For these reasons, I personally discourage the workaround you mention. I think the ability to edit/correct a donation in this way is intended only for true mistakes made due to human error. I could be totally wrong, but I believe the lack of ability to contribute these type of local funds online is indeed intentional.
barneja
New Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:32 am

Re: Discontinuation of AMFA categories

#40

Post by barneja »

mkmurray wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 5:09 pm I do have a theory based on previous policy and some of the recent announcements and category modifications. I believe the challenge the Church faces is differentiating between money that is given as an offering donation vs. money that is paid for services rendered. I think this distinction is critical for tax purposes and these two means of financial contribution are intended to be kept separate for that reason, the former being tax deductible and the latter not being so.
I appreciate your response mkmurray -- and I probably agree -- but because I am a pain-in-the-neck and because I like to question things like this I'll continue . . .

For tax reporting I agree the church needs to differentiate on contributions. Tithing, Fast Offerings, Ward Missionary, are likely tax deductible -- while contributing to a camp would not be tax deductible. However, adjusting an online donation vs donating on paper will give the same answer. Either way (paper or adjusted online), the contribution that hits 'High Adventure' will be non-tax deductible. Once the Church left the 'Other' realm and intermingled the Other/Budet funds the only official tracking we have is when the initial funds enter the Budget category. Did it enter via a contribution from a member or from an allocation of Church funds? If it entered via a contribution -- whether by paper contribution or adjusted online contribution -- then it is not tax deductible. I agree that the contributor's initial online donation (to Ward Missionary or whatever) would have been potentially tax deductible; however, once it is reclassed to 'High Adventure' then it is no longer tax deductible.

Look -- the easier road is for us to simply tell members we only accept a paper check. My life is easier just following the yellow brick road and not making any waves. I just wonder if we would be of more service to our 'customers' if we looked into what would be acceptable? I am not advocating we do anything the church does not want done -- and maybe I should interpret the church not making this available is their way of telling us it is inappropriate to use the adjusted online approach. I am simply stopping to ask if we could simplify the lives of those making contributions. Not all of us have checks anymore -- some of us only have checks to pay for our youth activities because virtually every other company/entity on this planet accepts online payments for everything. For youth activities I personally write a check from my Bill Pay from my bank and send it to me because I don't keep paper checks any longer.

My theory on why we don't have online access for camp contributions? Ward Clerks are the ones who setup the Budget Categories for their local ward. We as clerks could potentially flag a budget sub-category that is marked for online donations that can be seen by members contributing online. However, what if one of us creates an improper sub-category (ie, 'Sub for Santa') that is visible for all to see? Wouldn't that put some pressure on our 501(c) classification? And sometimes we need to manage to the lowest common denominator of our customer's technology utilization. So, to keep it simple we simply tell our customers they need to contribute by check if they want to contribute to a camp.

You could ask why the Church then doesn't make a generic 'Local' category that hits our budgets where we (as clerks) can transfer the funds to the appropriate sub-category? Same reply -- we develop technology to the lowest common denominator. What if a family makes an online contribution for their 17-year old son's High Adventure, 15 year-old daughter's YW camp, and 14-year old daughter's YW camp, and 14-year old daughter's Oak Crest Camp? How does the clerk know what part of that online donation was for what camp? Gets confusing so the Church just says make them do it on paper where they can have evidence of saying "Mitch's High Adventure Camp, Brittany's Oak Crest, Brittany's YW Camp, etc".

Anyway -- it is all theoretical until the Church gives us guidance. In the mean-time I'll just stay in the camp with those of us saying to simply do paper contributions for camps and everything else can be online. I guess I don't like the 'just jump in the box' mentality sometimes even though I think the box is quite comfortable . . .

Again -- thank you mkmurray and others for your thoughtful responses.
Post Reply

Return to “Local Unit Finance”