Excess Budget funds stake sweep

Discuss questions around local unit policies for budgeting, reconciling, etc. This forum should not contain specific financial or membership information.
Post Reply
BlairEsplin
New Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:47 pm

Re: Excess Budget funds stake sweep

#11

Post by BlairEsplin »

russellhltn wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 9:46 pm I see this as "policy verses tradition". I know the church news always plays them up, but there's nothing in the Handbook about holding a trek.

I think there's a fair chance what will come back down is "reduce and simplify". Perhaps a shorter time period, or a closer but less historical route. It wouldn't be the first time that beloved grand traditions have been done away with.
The thing with the trek in our area is that the trek center is only about thirty miles away and is owned by the church. The church has put a lot of money into it and it seems unlikely that ecclesiastical leaders would discourage its use. If the church wanted the stakes in our area to reduce trek expenses they could stop changing the stakes thousands of dollars to use the trek center. Why charge stakes to use church owned property. That’s sort of like having to pay to go to the temple.

I don’t believe this policy of taking back funds that rightly belong to the stakes is an ecclesiastical decision. I suspect it’s a decision made by church accountants looking at all the money sitting in stake and ward accounts.
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 34417
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: Excess Budget funds stake sweep

#12

Post by russellhltn »

BlairEsplin wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 11:29 pm I don’t believe this policy of taking back funds that rightly belong to the stakes is an ecclesiastical decision. I suspect it’s a decision made by church accountants looking at all the money sitting in stake and ward accounts.
It's possible the accountants noticed it, but I believe the letter came from the Presiding Bishopric who would have been the ones making the decisions.
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.
lajackson
Community Moderators
Posts: 11460
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:27 pm
Location: US

Re: Excess Budget funds stake sweep

#13

Post by lajackson »

russellhltn wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 1:31 am It's possible the accountants noticed it, but I believe the letter came from the Presiding Bishopric who would have been the ones making the decisions.
I wonder if this is a post-Covid policy where many units did not use much of their budget while Church was generally not in session.
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 34417
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: Excess Budget funds stake sweep

#14

Post by russellhltn »

lajackson wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:27 am I wonder if this is a post-Covid policy where many units did not use much of their budget while Church was generally not in session.
Quite possible. While I think we're well past the Covid situation, I know in my stake there's some programs that have yet to reach pre-covid levels of activity.
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.
devonerickson
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: Excess Budget funds stake sweep

#15

Post by devonerickson »

eblood66 wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 2:10 pm I'm believe the new letter is talking about the End Balance for the year.

My interpretation of the original letter is that we should figure out our budget needs for 2023 and return everything above what we have specific plans for. But regardless of our 2023 budget and future plans, we should not have a carry over from year-to-year that is more than 50% of the annual budget allocation. That max 50% does not depend on what we have entered into the 2023 budget but just on how much we received for 2022.

The new letter is now saying that if a stake still has more than that 50% it will be automatically transferred to CHQ.

But I don't know for certain.
This is my understanding of the new letter, but what remains unclear to me is whether the "annual budget allocation" refers to the amount received by the stake for its own expenses or the total allocation received by the stake and all of its subunits. Any insights on this?
eblood66
Senior Member
Posts: 3907
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Cumming, GA, USA

Re: Excess Budget funds stake sweep

#16

Post by eblood66 »

devonerickson wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 1:58 pmThis is my understanding of the new letter, but what remains unclear to me is whether the "annual budget allocation" refers to the amount received by the stake for its own expenses or the total allocation received by the stake and all of its subunits. Any insights on this?
I have wondered that myself. The letter only mentions stakes and not wards, branches or units. That makes me think they may look at the stake as a whole but it's by no means clear. If they do, I wonder what they will do if the majority of the excess is in the wards themselves. Will they take it from the stake's account (possibly making it negative) and then leave it to the stake to get the wards to transfer back to the stake to get it positive again?
BlairEsplin
New Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:47 pm

Re: Excess Budget funds stake sweep

#17

Post by BlairEsplin »

russellhltn wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 1:31 am
BlairEsplin wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 11:29 pm I don’t believe this policy of taking back funds that rightly belong to the stakes is an ecclesiastical decision. I suspect it’s a decision made by church accountants looking at all the money sitting in stake and ward accounts.
It's possible the accountants noticed it, but I believe the letter came from the Presiding Bishopric who would have been the ones making the decisions.
The letter was sent from the Office of the Presiding Bishopric Finance and Records Department.
BlairEsplin
New Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:47 pm

Re: Excess Budget funds stake sweep

#18

Post by BlairEsplin »

The first thing in this chain of events was the closing of the authorized member financed activities account. This money that had previously been kept separate from budget was then moved into the budget account. The wards in our stake had in the range of a thousand dollars or more in this account which was fundraiser money set aside for girl’s and boy’s camps.

Then came the letter saying not to spend excess budget money but to send it to church headquarters by the end of the year. Therefore the money that was camp fundraiser money which was part of the excess budget funds was then to be turned over to the church, contrary to the policy that camp fundraiser money was to be spent for the purpose for which it was raised. Now apparently this excess money will be subtracted from our account without regard for the Stake President’s authority and responsibility for managing stake funds.

I don’t know how this most recent letter applies to wards but in our stake some of the bishops used their authority as manager of ward funds to buy camping equipment, technology for their buildings and pre purchasing of supplies for ward activities ensuring there would be no excess funds at last year’s end. Other wards simply held onto the money because they need it to pay for this years FSY Conference.
caillines
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 6:09 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Excess Budget funds stake sweep

#19

Post by caillines »

Has anyone outside the US received this letter?
User avatar
johnshaw
Senior Member
Posts: 2273
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Syracuse, UT

Re: Excess Budget funds stake sweep

#20

Post by johnshaw »

I love this conversation, but I think we really are missing the point we should be learning.

Spend your budget, plan and spend, however, when priesthood leaders treat budgets like their own personal expense accounts (yes, this is EXACLTY how many of the use it) they are not being financially responsible. I've been in the Young Men for the last 4 years, never once did we plan activities ahead of time and assign at least an estimated value to come up with what our budget should be (boy I liked being a clerk better) - It is the height of irresponsibility not to have a budget with estimated activity $$. Everyone on this comment thread is like, hey, look at all our planning, etc... but that's not the problem, the problem is the 'not planning' and seeing the money sit there unused. It's like the stake or ward missionary budget sitting with tens of thousands of dollars doing nothing. When CUBS was first introduced, I saw wards 'build up' a surplus to the point that they had 'double' their budget and when we finally had our come-to-Jesus meeting, they claimed it was being saved for a rainy day, what a crock, it was not, it was that you didn't plan anything.... In my own ward I paid $375 for my girls to attend YW Camp, all-the-while knowing there was 4K held over from the previous year in our ward budget (I was the stake clerk at the time)

So, I agree that those planning for 2 to 4 year activities need to figure that out, but honestly, we need to worry about what the purpose is... wards aren't spending their money, why? Wards are hording money in their accounts why? until we, at the local level, figure it out, the church will say, thankyou kindly for the free money you're not using, and likely, asking your members to pay more because tradition says they should. Talk about not taking care of the widow's mite... first we give our tithing, then when a portion of that tithing comes back to our ward, leaders spit in the eye of the widow... goodness gracious, we should be ashamed.
“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.”
― Thomas Paine, Common Sense
Post Reply

Return to “Local Unit Finance”