Other:Scouts

Discuss questions around local unit policies for budgeting, reconciling, etc. This forum should not contain specific financial or membership information.
jvoran
New Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 2:52 pm

Other:Scouts

Postby jvoran » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:43 pm

Re: audits in our stake, quite often we have a large balance in the Other category (with several units) under sub categories: Scouts, Scout Camp, Flags, etc... For several audits, covering 3 to 4 years, not much has changed. I've been suggesting to the clerks/Bishops to use these funds within the year iso letting them carry over. Should I not be doing this?! I know the Other category is strictly for pass-through funds but perhaps with Scouts its a little different?

lajackson
Community Moderators
Posts: 6139
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:27 pm
Location: US

Postby lajackson » Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:32 pm

jvoran wrote:I know the Other category is strictly for pass-through funds but perhaps with Scouts its a little different?


The rules are not any different for Scouts. Although you are seeing something that happens a little more often than I personally believe it should.

However, just because they are pass-through funds does not mean they cannot come in during one year and be spent during the next. Some of our Scouts begin putting their portion of the cost of the annual camp into the AMFA in the fall, but it is not spent until the following summer.

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 14693
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:31 pm

jvoran wrote: I've been suggesting to the clerks/Bishops to use these funds within the year iso letting them carry over. Should I not be doing this?! I know the Other category is strictly for pass-through funds but perhaps with Scouts its a little different?


The rules aren't different for Scouts, but there's also no absolute rule about spending the funds within a year -- they are just to be spent "promptly" for the intended purpose. In my opinion, the restrictions on what such funds can be spent on are more important than when they are spent (although timing is clearly important, too). Such funds can only be spent for one annual camp and for equipment for such a camp.

If the funds can't be spent soon enough on appropriate uses, then the surplus funds have to be refunded (which can be quite an accounting mess) or sent to CHQ. The precise local policy (within Church policy, of course) is determined by the stake president, bishop, and audit committee chair. I'm not sure what your position is, but I don't think an auditor should make such a determination on his own without consulting with the audit committee chair.
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.

User avatar
johnshaw
Senior Member
Posts: 1837
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Syracuse, UT

Postby johnshaw » Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:20 am

Our stake was exactly the same way. I was greatly bothered by the 'Generic' nature of the categories in Scout Funds (and other categories, but mostly scouts). Thanks to the CUBS transition around the same time I started cracking down it became nearly impossible to figure out the historical usage of the accounts. We decided to draw a line in the sand and moving forward accounts would be created with the intended purpose rather than the generic term, for example:

Scout Camp 2013 (funds might still be collected in 2012, but the account is for the 2013 camp)
Garage Sale Fund Raiser for Youth 2012 - note on the sale said, all funds will be used for Scout Camp and YW Camp in 2012, remaining will equally be distributed among the 2013 funds

When dealing with a large Funds, I have provided counsel to Stake Presidents and Bishops that, as of this date, in Priesthood and in RS walk in, explain the issue, and that it has been building, get the sustaining vote of the members that funds as of this time designated in a general category (Scout Camp) will be moved to a specific category (Scout Camp 2013) and left over funds will move to a specific category (Scout Camp 2014) year after year until depleted. To me, this is a good compromise between a need to refund, not having a good trail to follow-back, and trying to use the funds in the way they were given. Bishops and Stake Presidents have the final decision making.

BTW, you likely have wards that continue to fund raise, year after year while funds exist in the AMFA. I believe this is a larger problem than should exist. The obvious conclusion to draw from it is that Budgeting isn't truly being done. There is no evaluation of funds to activities, but an assumed fund raiser to cover the YW/YM activities, effectively meaning that wards are fundraising to have increased Budgets.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20758
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:22 pm

JohnShaw wrote:get the sustaining vote of the members that funds as of this time designated in a general category (Scout Camp) will be moved to a specific category (Scout Camp 2013) and left over funds will move to a specific category (Scout Camp 2014) year after year until depleted.


I don't know as there's any verbiage in the handbook or precedence for that. Unfortunately doing that does set a precedent for not refunding in the future.


JohnShaw wrote:To me, this is a good compromise between a need to refund, not having a good trail to follow-back, and trying to use the funds in the way they were given.


I thought the instructions were when refunds were not practical was to send the funds to CHQ.
Have you searched the Wiki?
Try using a Google search by adding "site:tech.lds.org/wiki" to the search criteria.

User avatar
wrigjef
Member
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 8:38 am
Location: Chesapeake, Virginia
Contact:

Postby wrigjef » Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:55 pm

Over a year ago in a training meeting with our regional Audit Trainer, who had just returned from meetings in Salt Lake, very strongly suggested that all other accounts should be cleared at the end of the year. The Stake President took this seriously and through me, informed the units of this (local) requirement. Since then there have been exceptions made when the AMFA sub-account is very specific as mentioned above (scout camp 2013) or (regional single adults clearing acct 2012).

jdlessley
Community Moderators
Posts: 6526
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:30 pm
Location: USA, TX

Postby jdlessley » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:01 pm

JohnShaw wrote:Garage Sale Fund Raiser for Youth 2012 - note on the sale said, all funds will be used for Scout Camp and YW Camp in 2012, remaining will equally be distributed among the 2013 funds
This does not follow the direction provided in Handbook 2, 13.6.8. A fund-raiser is to help pay the cost of one annual camp or similar activity or equipment for annual camps. I find it hard to stay within the bounds of that definition if the fund-raiser funds exceeded the funding need for one year that they could be rolled into the next year.

JohnShaw wrote:When dealing with a large Funds, I have provided counsel to Stake Presidents and Bishops that, as of this date, in Priesthood and in RS walk in, explain the issue, and that it has been building, get the sustaining vote of the members that funds as of this time designated in a general category (Scout Camp) will be moved to a specific category (Scout Camp 2013) and left over funds will move to a specific category (Scout Camp 2014) year after year until depleted. To me, this is a good compromise between a need to refund, not having a good trail to follow-back, and trying to use the funds in the way they were given. Bishops and Stake Presidents have the final decision making.
I think Russell addressed the sustaining vote issue.

Rolling funds from one year to the next does not meet the requirement to disperse the funds in a timely manner nor the requirement that funds be collected for a specific purpose. As far as I can tell there is no compromise between using the funds for the specific purpose or refunding the money. Either it is used for the specific purpose, refunded, or in those situations where the donors cannot be determined or located it is sent to church headquarters.
JD Lessley
Have you tried finding your answer on the LDS.org Help Center page or the LDSTech wiki?

User avatar
johnshaw
Senior Member
Posts: 1837
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Syracuse, UT

Postby johnshaw » Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:00 pm

RussellHltn wrote:I don't know as there's any verbiage in the handbook or precedence for that. Unfortunately doing that does set a precedent for not refunding in the future.

I thought the instructions were when refunds were not practical was to send the funds to CHQ.


This was a one time event that had to do with the CUBS upgrade making the history unavailable. It is not in any way a precedent for active on-going practice or policy, though reading back through it i see the confusion, particularly the dates used in the example. sorry bout that

daveywest
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:19 pm
Location: Mesquite, Nevada, United States

Postby daveywest » Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:49 pm

I have advised ward clerks in my stake to not allow their unit to carry over any more than necessary to pay for the following year's camp. I've suggested they direct their scout leaders to used excess funds for camp related expenses. Those may include:

Scout Trailer registration and maintenance
New Tents, dutch ovens, lanterns, etc. for use at camp
Improvement projects at our local church camp that the ward camps at the same site each year
Other camp related expense as authorized by the bishop

If the unit cannot spend all their funds after considering the above, I then recomend they conduct a service project as directed by the bishop to dispose of funds.
Bro. West
Assistant Stake Clerk - Finance (2 years)
Former Assistant Ward Clerk - Finance (3 years)

jdlessley
Community Moderators
Posts: 6526
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:30 pm
Location: USA, TX

Postby jdlessley » Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:43 pm

daveywest wrote:I have advised ward clerks in my stake to not allow their unit to carry over any more than necessary to pay for the following year's camp.
I am not sure I understand what direction you are providing. Are you advising that fund-raiser funds in excess needed for 2012 summer camps be rolled over to fund any or all of the funding for 2013 summer camps? If so, I do not see how this is even a loose interpretation of Handbook 2, 13.6.8. More specifically note the first numbered item of paragraph one which limits the funds raised from one group fund-raiser "[t]o help pay the cost of one annual camp or similar activity as outlined in 13.2.8."

I would also ask if this direction is being provided after counseling with the stake president?

daveywest wrote:I've suggested they direct their scout leaders to used excess funds for camp related expenses.
Please note Handbook 2, 13.6.8, second numbered item of paragraph one which limits the use of funds not used to pay the cost of one annual camp to being used "[t]o help purchase equipment that the unit needs for annual camps as outlined in 13.2.9." The first, third, and fourth line of items you list do not fit the definition of equipment in 13.6.8.

daveywest wrote:If the unit cannot spend all their funds after considering the above, I then recomend they conduct a service project as directed by the bishop to dispose of funds.
Again, this is not one of the two purposes for which fund-raiser funds may be used.
JD Lessley
Have you tried finding your answer on the LDS.org Help Center page or the LDSTech wiki?


Return to “Local Unit Finance”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest