How much is too much?

[dmurphree]

Our stake is dealing with some wards having a large amount of money in their ward missionary fund. We are discussing redistributing the funds from wards with excess to wards with missionaries that could use it. The question came up of how much counts as excessive for a ward missionary fund. Should we let a ward keep enough to cover each of their active missionaries for a year just in case their missionaries get in a bind? Or is there a fixed "extra" amount that's a better idea? Or should ward missionary funds only have funds in named missionary accounts and the rest should be zero? If anyone knows any official guidelines on this or even just has an opinion it would be helpful. Thank you!

[russellhltn]

Handbook guidance is in 34.3.3.

To me, the big question is where did all that money come from? To the extent that it was donated by families to support their missionary, it needs to be credited to that missionary's account. If it hasn't been created yet, then it will have to sit in the general ward account until then. I certainly wouldn't want those "family funds" earmarked for a specific missionary to get swept to the stake just because they paid the whole thing in advance (bad idea!).

If this is an accumulation of generous donations by the ward members, when what is the plan? If it were me, I'd transfer them to the various missionary accounts and let the families know to lighten up. Otherwise, it's just going to accumulate and end up being given to the stake. Outside of the exception outlined above, anything that sits in the top level ward missionary would appear to have no spending plan and is ripe for being swept for other units. Those funds can't be used for anything else. Not even a "missionary event". Moving them into individual accounts shows there's a spending plan/ear mark.

As for "how much is too much" that's a matter of debate. Assuming none of your accounts are negative, then anything more than a cushion for a late payment taking the ward missionary account in to the red could reasonably be considered excess. Even that much might be open for debate.

[eblood66]

At one point, quite a few years ago, we received instructions (I think it was an MLS message but it might have been an official letter) that anything over enough to cover 3 months of expenses for each of the missionaries in the ward (not counting any 'pre-paid' funds for a specific missionary) should be considered excess and sent along to SLC. That was probably at least 10 years ago and I haven't seen any similar instructions recently and there isn't anything specific in the handbook now so I don't consider that binding in any way now. But it is one data point to consider.

Personally I do think it is reasonable to have some funds in the top level (non-missionary specific) Ward Missionary category. First as a buffer to make sure the overall ward missionary fund stays positive even if a few families get a few months behind. Also, in every ward I've been in we've occasionally had to unexpectedly support all or part of a missionary's expenses when they didn't have much family support or the family hit hard times financially. But if a ward has enough to pay for several missionaries' entire mission then that's excessive to me.

Also personally, I wouldn't just distribute excess funds to the specific missionaries in the ward except for families the bishop knows are struggling. There are blessings in supporting a missionary and I wouldn't take that away from those who want those blessings. If other wards in the stake can really use them, I'd have them transfer to where they can help. But sending excess to CHQ helps keep the monthly equalized payment from having to be raised so that benefits all missionaries.

[russellhltn]

But sending excess to CHQ helps keep the monthly equalized payment from having to be raised so that benefits all missionaries.

The way I'm reading it, the way it is now, the ward only shares with the stake. Any excess at the stake level can be forwarded to the coordinating council. I don't think the ward has the option to send to Ward Missionary to CHQ.

I agree with a cushion, but Section 0.4 comes into play. It's possible the stake sees it differently. Ultimately it's going to be their definition of "excess".

[eblood66]

The way I'm reading it, the way it is now, the ward only shares with the stake.

Well, a ward can transfer funds to another ward in the stake (usually under the direction of the stake) or to the stake. But the ward cannot directly transfer funds out of the stake. They have to go to the stake first.

Any excess at the stake level can be forwarded to the coordinating council.

Well, again, kind of. A stake has the ability to transfer missionary funds to any other stake, ward or branch in the church. So in coordination with other stakes in the council and under the directions of the area authority over the council, the stake can transfer funds to another stake or ward in the council. But the council doesn't have a missionary fund for the council as a whole.

I don't think the ward has the option to send to Ward Missionary to CHQ.

No, but as the 2nd to last paragraph of Handbook section 34.3.3 says, excess funds can be transferred to the General Missionary Fund. But wards must first transfer to the stake and the stake can then transfer to CHQ.

I agree with a cushion, but Section 0.4 comes into play. It's possible the stake sees it differently. Ultimately it's going to be their definition of "excess".

Absolutely. This is basically the council I give to my stake president but the decision is his.

[BrianEdwards]

Our stake is dealing with some wards having a large amount of money in their ward missionary fund. We are discussing redistributing the funds from wards with excess to wards with missionaries that could use it. The question came up of how much counts as excessive for a ward missionary fund. Should we let a ward keep enough to cover each of their active missionaries for a year just in case their missionaries get in a bind? Or is there a fixed "extra" amount that's a better idea? Or should ward missionary funds only have funds in named missionary accounts and the rest should be zero? If anyone knows any official guidelines on this or even just has an opinion it would be helpful. Thank you!

I agree with the principle of "what are the needs, and what is the plan"? My thought is that the stake is best-positioned to understand the current and near-term situations of each ward regarding missionary support. I'd suggest that the stake presidency reach out to each bishop and request details about missionary support for current missionaries, as well as projected missionaries leaving throughout 2025. If every ward is fairly comfortable with supporting their missionaries (through family and ward members), then excess funds that weren't donated specifically for a missionary, seem unnecessary. But if there are situations where additional help is beneficial, then shifting those funds around meets those needs. And even in cases where funds were donated specifically, if there's a surplus for that missionary, the donations are free to be assigned elsewhere.

Perhaps something for the bishops and stake president to discuss at their next bishop's council meeting, with the "ask" beforehand for each bishop to come prepared with those details. I think that's a great discussion topic, to help the bishops feel a shared connection to supporting the missionary work with the donated funds.

[dmurphree]

Thank you all for the advice and counsel. The excess funds are all from member donations that did not specify a missionary by name. We decided to have the wards with the largest excess transfer the funds to the Stake and discuss with bishops if there is any need in wards with less. If the excess remains for a few more months we will send to headquarters. I appreciate the help!