YSA Wards/Branches and the Activities Committee

[aebrown]

Unfortunately, I neither have access to Handbook 1, or had much time to read Handbook 2, but the first question I have is are activity committees prohibited or simply no longer what I call "minimum requirements" for a ward? If it's only the latter, then I'd say it's the leader's prerogative as to how or if he wants to organize a committee.

Elder Cook made it quite clear that standing ward activity committees will no longer exist. In his message he stated (emphasis added):

This chapter provides a new approach for planning and implementing activities. There is no longer a permanent activities committee at the ward level. Section 13.2.1, in the middle of the second paragraph, reads: “When an activity is for the entire ward, the bishop may assign responsibility for it to one or more organizations represented on the ward council. He may also assign responsibility … to other individuals or to a committee.” Normally these assignments are for a specific activity or event only.

It's interesting to note that although the stake council is similarly in charge of activities at the stake level (see 13.2.1), the stake president may organize a standing Stake Activities Committee (see 13.3.2).

But I have to say that the first thought that crossed my mind was not that there would be fewer activities, but only that there would no longer be a ongoing activities committee. In other words, an ad hoc committee would be created for each event. No one person would have to be burned with the organization each time (but I do suspect it would tend to fall to the same group). All in all, I kind of expected the outcome to be the same as it is now, it's just that no one would have the calling to plan events.

There is nothing that says there would be fewer activities. In fact, so many possibilities are mentioned (especially in 13.2.6 -- Balance and Variety) that it's clear there should be plenty of activities to strengthen members in a variety of ways. There is a warning that "Leaders also ensure that activities do not become so numerous that they put undue burdens on members" (see 13.2.2), but that has always been a foundational principle in this area.

Although an ad hoc committee may be formed, the first preference is for an organization or group of organizations to plan an activity. Following the new guidelines, for example, the bishop could certainly ask the Elders Quorum to organize the Fathers and Sons Campout; the Relief Society and Young Women could work together on a Humanitarian Aid project; etc. Such activities could simply be planned by the existing quorum and auxiliary presidencies with no special committee. But for something like a ward Christmas party, a bishop may choose to have an ad hoc committee take charge. There's tremendous flexibility available within these basic principles as the bishop is inspired to direct as he counsels with the ward council.

[idjeeper2]

Thank you for your input thus far. Your thoughts follow some of the ideas I have had with some additional insights into how activities committees have operated in the past and some points in the guidelines that hadn't struck me yet. I think this will be valuable in our discussions.

As pointed out by several of you, one of my concerns from when I was first called into the branch, has been that the activities sometimes seem to lack balance and focus, take an inordinate amount of planning and preparation, and sometimes cost a lot of money. As a presidency, we have to be careful in our council to the Chairperson to convey what we need without making it seem that they are failing in their calling - and they really aren't. I believe that no matter what course we end up taking with respect to the activities committee, following the guidelines for activities will bring us blessings and enhance the branch as a whole.

I don't usually like to parse words, but one of Elder Cook's comments stands out "Normally these assignments are for a specific activity or event only". I almost feel like I'm looking for an "out" but does that hit anyone else? Are the YSAs normal? (As an aside, we have a number of members with disabilities and often get referred to, usually not in a mean-spirited way, as the Special Needs Branch, so maybe we really aren't normal. )

Again I thank you. Hopefully this discussion hasn't run it's course quite yet.

[mkmurray]

From the newsroom announcement of the new handbook:

"Church leaders have emphasized that while the handbook is an essential guide in a large church with a lay ministry, it is not scripture, and individual leaders are expected to seek inspiration and use judgment when administering their church duties."

It seems to me that might apply here?

Possibly. I'd like to share some quotes from the Leadership Training presentation that accompanied the passing out of these materials. They are instructive in regard to when making exceptions is appropriate. My only purpose in sharing these quotes is to point out that exceptions can be made to a limited number of policies and programs at the local level when guided by the Spirit by special circumstances, and after having read and understand all the existing policies and underlying principles first. I'm not saying anyone here is in danger of violating this council, but I think it is important to keep these words in mind as decisions about exceptions to the Handbook are being decided.

Elder Dallin H.Oaks

While handbooks do not have the same standing as the scriptures, they do represent the most current interpretations and procedural directions of the Church’s highest authorities...We know that these handbooks and their directions, as President Monson has said and as is stated in their introductions, “can facilitate revelation if they are used to provide an understanding of principles, policies, and procedures to apply while seeking the guidance of the Spirit” (Handbook 1: Stake Presidents and Bishops [2010], v; Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], v).

...

In contrast to the doctrinally uniform and permanent principles stated in the first three short chapters, most of book 2 consists of inspired programs and policies that can be changed in the future by appropriate authority. For most of the handbook, including its stated policies and principles, the only authority authorized to make changes is the First Presidency. We need to remember that policy directions are approved and announced only by the First Presidency. They are not introduced through rumor from one leader or member to another. Further, if you have questions, you should discuss them with your presiding priesthood leader. Only the most senior priesthood leaders should be checking with the Office of the First Presidency. As an exception, as Elder Cook will explain in a moment, a limited number of programs can be modified by local authorities where needed by local conditions or where necessary to serve the members.

President Thomas S. Monson

The point, however, is that in almost all cases, if the leaders would only read, understand, and follow the handbook, such problems would not occur. Whether you’ve been a lifelong member of the Church or are a relatively new member, consult the handbook when you are uncertain about a policy or procedure. You may think you know how to handle the situation when, in fact, you may be on the wrong track. There is safety in the handbooks.

(emphasis added)

[TinMan]

While that is true in theory, Alan, I see some practical problems.

1. Who oversees these ad hoc committees? The bishopric? I thought we were lightening their loads. Does he give the elders quorum president supervisory responsibilities over the ward Christmas party ad hoc committee, the relief society president over the ad hoc Ward camp out committee and the High Priest leader over the ad hoc fall cultural event committee? That would mean you have a committee that reports to the Elders quorum that then reports to say the bishopric counselor over activities? Or do all these details get worked out in Ward Council where we're not supposed to be discussing calendar events?

2. What about budgets for these ad hoc committees? In the past, the activities committee was give a yearly budget and several ward activities, and they budgeted them all. Now it seems the bishopric has to budget them all separately. I think funding of activities on an activity by activity basis just became the responsibility of the bishop. I don't think you can assign say the Ward Christmas Party to the Relief Society, and say "it comes out of your budget."

In some ways I see this as more work for the bishopric, not less.

But, as they say, we shall see. What I can see happening on a practical level is the current activities committee being split up among the different ward council groups and put on some sort of "service committee" Then when any activities that happen on a ward basis, the activity committee re-forms but under the direction of one of the Ward Council members.

[TinMan]

Possibly. I'd like to share some quotes from the Leadership Training presentation that accompanied the passing out of these materials. They are instructive in regard to when making exceptions is appropriate. My only purpose in sharing these quotes is to point out that exceptions can be made to a limited number of policies and programs at the local level when guided by the Spirit by special circumstances, and after having read and understand all the existing policies and underlying principles first. I'm not saying anyone here is in danger of violating this council, but I think it is important to keep these words in mind as decisions about exceptions to the Handbook are being decided.

Having served in two YSA bishoprics, it is my opinion that the church leadership on all levels are conflicted as to what to do with YSA wards. We often felt out on our own in trying to make "existing policies and underlying principles" fit the unique problems in a YSA ward.

Just my anecdotal opinion.

[russellhltn]

activities sometimes seem to lack balance and focus, take an inordinate amount of planning and preparation, and sometimes cost a lot of money.

It's been my observation that left on their own, activities will become bigger and grander (and more expensive). Yes, they frequently do have to be reigned in and brought back to the purpose.

Then when any activities that happen on a ward basis, the activity committee re-forms but under the direction of one of the Ward Council members.

Change that to "the same group of people" and I'd agree that's likely to be implemented.

[aebrown]

1. Who oversees these ad hoc committees? The bishopric? I thought we were lightening their loads.

It is quite clear in the handbook. "[The bishop] may also assign responsibility for an activity to other individuals or to a committee, working under the direction of the ward council." It's under the direction of the ward council. If the ward council functions properly, it will certainly lighten the load on the bishop.

Does he give the elders quorum president supervisory responsibilities over the ward Christmas party ad hoc committee, the relief society president over the ad hoc Ward camp out committee and the High Priest leader over the ad hoc fall cultural event committee? That would mean you have a committee that reports to the Elders quorum that then reports to say the bishopric counselor over activities?

In general, the way I read the handbook, these ad hoc committees will be the exception. The auxiliary/quorum presidencies take the responsibility, but may have the help of some extra members for some activities.

Or do all these details get worked out in Ward Council where we're not supposed to be discussing calendar events?

Planning activities is clearly a responsibility of the ward council. What we are to avoid is spending lots of time discussing the calendar itself. The ward council decides on the organization(s) that will be in charge, and then those organizations go off and plan all the details, reporting back in the next ward council meeting, or through some other means before the next meeting.

2. What about budgets for these ad hoc committees? In the past, the activities committee was give a yearly budget and several ward activities, and they budgeted them all. Now it seems the bishopric has to budget them all separately. I think funding of activities on an activity by activity basis just became the responsibility of the bishop. I don't think you can assign say the Ward Christmas Party to the Relief Society, and say "it comes out of your budget."

Budgeting can still be done using an "Activities" subcategory. I agree that it makes no sense to charge the cost of ward activities to an organization that was simply given organizational responsibility.

In some ways I see this as more work for the bishopric, not less.

It should be less. Trust in the inspiration of the leaders of the Church. I think this can really work well if we work with it, not against it or around it.

But, as they say, we shall see. What I can see happening on a practical level is the current activities committee being split up among the different ward council groups and put on some sort of "service committee" Then when any activities that happen on a ward basis, the activity committee re-forms but under the direction of one of the Ward Council members.

That sounds like a rationalization for keeping the current system. There's no difference between having a permanent activities committee and having one that disbands and re-forms for every activity. If that were the intent of the new Handbook, they never would have removed the activities committee as a permanent committee.

[russellhltn]

Planning activities is clearly a responsibility of the ward council. What we are to avoid is spending lots of time discussing the calendar itself. The ward council decides on the organization(s) that will be in charge, and then those organizations go off and plan all the details,

I think that's the key. When to halt the discussion to prevent co-opting the WC meeting and forcing the participants to go form their own meeting to take care of the details. It's all too easy to go into that when everyone is already there and on the subject.

There's no difference between having a permanent activities committee and having one that disbands and re-forms for every activity.

I see a difference in that a permanent committee would be in a position to create more activities simply because they haven't done one in a month or two.

[lajackson]

Planning activities is clearly a responsibility of the ward council. What we are to avoid is spending lots of time discussing the calendar itself. The ward council decides on the organization(s) that will be in charge, and then those organizations go off and plan all the details, reporting back in the next ward council meeting, or through some other means before the next meeting.

For a large activity that crosses organizational boundaries, there is nothing wrong, it seems to me, with the ward council assigning different parts of the activity to different organizations.

We already do this. One organization get the setup, one gets the food, one gets the entertainment, one gets the cleanup. The responsibilities usually are different from event to event.

[TinMan]

I think that's the key. When to halt the discussion to prevent co-opting the WC meeting and forcing the participants to go form their own meeting to take care of the details. It's all too easy to go into that when everyone is already there and on the subject.



I see a difference in that a permanent committee would be in a position to create more activities simply because they haven't done one in a month or two.

But in a YSA ward, activities are the lifeblood of the ward. One or two activities a month is not unusual. And who is on the Ward Council in a YSA ward? The Elders, the Relief Society, the Sunday School, and the Ward mission leader. No YM, YW or Primary. That is 3 fewer organizations to help with activities. And you have twice the activities.