Handbook instructions relative to CUBS

Some discussions just don't fit into a well defined box. Use this forum to discuss general topics and issues revolving around the Church and the technology offerings we use and share.
idjeeper2
Member
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:39 pm
Location: Boise, Idaho, USA

#11

Post by idjeeper2 »

wcooke wrote:I know this thread has progressed to access to CHI1, but going back to my previous posts. I understand what Alan said, but I guess that we looked it slightly differently. When we heard about the "roll over", our Bishop was very pleased. That policy would seem to "reward" those wards who, during one year, were very fiscally prudent, and didn't spend all of their funds, by letting them use those few dollars left from the previous year for expenses the next year.

I know that with the previous policy, and I guess it remains so, that those wards who have funds left over towards the end of the year will be tempted spend those funds at the end of the year on things that they might not have spent them on if they could have carried the funds over.

Anyway, of course we will follow policy and learn and grow from obedience. All in all, the more I find out about the CUBS system, the more I like it. It seems that it will, over all, be an easier system to use once we get into next year..

I really appreciate this forum. As you can see, I just recently "stumbled" on it, and have learned so much. Thank you to all of you who contribute.
I believe that you and your bishop have interpreted it correctly and your view is in line with Alan's comments if I understand them correctly. Not trying to put words in Alan's mouth here. If your ward is "fiscally prudent" and has funds remaining, those funds roll over to the new year and can be used. The key is, that if your unit doesn't need those funds, the appropriate thing to do is to give them back to the stake so they can be reallocated to a better use than simply sitting in your ward account.

Two things could happen that might test your patience. A stake may just decide to pull any leftover funds without regard to a bishop's plans (not sure if they can do this without the ward writing a check). Or your unit might be nice and send the funds back and they will then be reallocated to a ward full of spendthrifts. In either case, doing what is right will bring blessings and every ward should have enough money in their budget to get the work done.

I believe that what is often lost in budget discussions is the understanding that these are sacred funds that have been donated (oftentimes at great sacrifice) for the building up of the Kingdom. I have concerns about a ward that hurriedly spends the remaining budget at the end of the year so they don't "lose their money". If the purchases were important, why did they wait until the end of the year? And if they are buying relatively useless stuff, couldn't those funds be put to a more important purpose? These are rhetorical questions and not aimed at any person or ward in particular. Just something to think about.
User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 15153
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Draper, Utah

#12

Post by aebrown »

wcooke wrote:I know that with the previous policy, and I guess it remains so, that those wards who have funds left over towards the end of the year will be tempted spend those funds at the end of the year on things that they might not have spent them on if they could have carried the funds over.
There is no change in policy. The stake president has always controlled the issue of rollover, and still does. It's just that with the previous software, the default implementation was to not rollover, and now the default is for wards to rollover.

Under the previous system, our stake chose to allow wards to carry forward surpluses (and deficits, if any). We simply incorporated those numbers in our allocation calculations. We had determined several years ago that we didn't want any "use it or lose it" thinking, and that's why we implemented that policy. So we're not making any significant change -- it's just that under CUBS, the default behavior makes our existing policy that much easier to implement.

Under the new system, a stake president may certainly determine that he wants wards to send in a check at the end of the year for any surplus budget funds. That's his prerogative even now, but under CUBS this takes more work.

[NOTE: I split this discussion (which was reasonably self-contained) into its own thread from the New Church Handbook of Instructions 2010? thread.]
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.
scgallafent
Church Employee
Church Employee
Posts: 3025
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Riverton, Utah

#13

Post by scgallafent »

idjeeper wrote:I believe that you and your bishop have interpreted it correctly and your view is in line with Alan's comments if I understand them correctly. Not trying to put words in Alan's mouth here. If your ward is "fiscally prudent" and has funds remaining, those funds roll over to the new year and can be used. The key is, that if your unit doesn't need those funds, the appropriate thing to do is to give them back to the stake so they can be reallocated to a better use than simply sitting in your ward account.
The best place to determine what will happen in a specific ward is probably for the bishop to talk with the stake president. The stake president will be the one who determines how excess funds are handled at the end of the year. Anything we come up with is, at best, conjecture about how it might be handled for a given stake.
idjeeper2
Member
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:39 pm
Location: Boise, Idaho, USA

#14

Post by idjeeper2 »

scgallafent wrote:The best place to determine what will happen in a specific ward is probably for the bishop to talk with the stake president. The stake president will be the one who determines how excess funds are handled at the end of the year. Anything we come up with is, at best, conjecture about how it might be handled for a given stake.
You are correct and I should have made this clear. As you and Alan said, ultimately it is the Stake President's call.

And thanks to Alan. There was a bit of a hijack going so splitting the two threads will make things easier to reference in the future.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussions”