Other:Scouts

[johnshaw]

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.

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.

I wanted to respond to this comment, I reviewed the Other account training today and found this 'NOTE' on the page of what to do with excess funds.

Note: In a few cases you can leave excess funds in an "Other" subcategory. Such may be the case for annual youth camps. The escess should be modest and handled according to general principles outlined in this lesson.

[waynecooke]

Good points, except with one adjustment: the handbook never mentions an option for families to pay. It's paid by budget funds, participants, and then fund raising.

"Participants", "families". Is it any of our business to ask a family where the money for camp is coming from? That seems a little too intrusive to me. That is a family decision, I would think.

[aebrown]

"Participants", "families". Is it any of our business to ask a family where the money for camp is coming from? That seems a little too intrusive to me. That is a family decision, I would think.

I think that it is an important distinction, and I think the wording of Handbook 2, Section 13.2.8 supports that claim: "If funds from participants are not sufficient, the bishop may authorize one group fund-raising activity" (emphasis added). Most families have enough money to pay for a camp, or in any case more families than youth have enough money to pay for a camp. If that conditional clause referred to families instead of participants, it would be rare that such funds would be insufficient. Thus the totality of the policy only makes sense if it is the participants who make the payment in this scenario. I also believe that the wording in the Handbook is chosen carefully, and so the word "participant" actually means something different from other words that might have been chosen there.

It is also my opinion that a camp should not be a burden on the family, but rather that if the budget funds are insufficient, the youth should be encouraged to personally earn the money. This provides an opportunity for parents and youth leaders to teach the youth about the value of taking responsibility and earning money to pay their own way. If those principles are taught well, the youth will take the responsibility and there won't be any question about where the money is coming from.

I would note, of course, that we only talk about these options for one annual camp when budget funds are insufficient.

[allenjpl]

"Participants", "families". Is it any of our business to ask a family where the money for camp is coming from? That seems a little too intrusive to me. That is a family decision, I would think.

"A Scout is Thrifty. A Scout works to pay his own way and to help others. He saves for the future. He protects and conserves natural resources. He carefully uses time and property."

[wrigjef]

I wanted to respond to this comment, I reviewed the Other account training today and found this 'NOTE' on the page of what to do with excess funds.

Note: In a few cases you can leave excess funds in an "Other" subcategory. Such may be the case for annual youth camps. The escess should be modest and handled according to general principles outlined in this lesson.


Question 26 on the audit reads "Are funds in the "Other" category spent for their intended purpose within a reasonable time period?"

[johnshaw]

Question 26 on the audit reads "Are funds in the "Other" category spent for their intended purpose within a reasonable time period?"

I'm not sure the intention of this, are you saying the Audit question contradicts the information in the online training? or are you wondering if allowing money to transfer from one year to the next falls within 'a reasonable time period?

I'd say that a reasonable time period is specific to the Purpose of the funds. If I do a fund raiser for YW Camp, and there is some left over, the Bishop authorizes me to carry it to the next year, and I use it next year, that is reasonable to me. If I have a fund called Member Water Barrel Purchase - which is a one-time event, it seems an unreasonable thing to do to carry forward money for something that was an one-time event.

[russellhltn]

If I do a fund raiser for YW Camp, and there is some left over, the Bishop authorizes me to carry it to the next year, and I use it next year, that is reasonable to me. If I have a fund called Member Water Barrel Purchase - which is a one-time event, it seems an unreasonable thing to do to carry forward money for something that was an one-time event.

Not only that, but in the first example at least some of the money came from a fund raiser where refunds may not be practical. In the second, the funds came from members and should be refunded.

[aebrown]

I'd say that a reasonable time period is specific to the Purpose of the funds. If I do a fund raiser for YW Camp, and there is some left over, the Bishop authorizes me to carry it to the next year, and I use it next year, that is reasonable to me. If I have a fund called Member Water Barrel Purchase - which is a one-time event, it seems an unreasonable thing to do to carry forward money for something that was an one-time event.

Well said. In my opinion, too many people are trying to make absolute rules about what "reasonable" means. If the Auditing Department wanted this to always mean "within a year" (or some other specific time period) they could have easily written "within a year" in that audit step. But instead, they wrote "reasonable time period." That clearly requires some judgment, but to my thinking it also very clearly indicates that there is not an absolute rule.

[wrigjef]

I'm not sure the intention of this, are you saying the Audit question contradicts the information in the online training? or are you wondering if allowing money to transfer from one year to the next falls within 'a reasonable time period?

My intention was indeed to point out a contradiction. It seems impossible to have excess funds in the other account and still abide by the "spent in a reasonable time period" rule.

In my experience, an auditor will write up an exception based on the audit form question but does not necessarily know handbook or other instruction.

I've mentioned before that in our stake it has been made very clear. Our audit trainer suggested that we not carry funds over from year to year, while this was clearly a suggestion to help units avoid exceptions, it was supported by the Stake President and units in our stake are now directed to clear other accounts at year end. But then again I realize that this is local instruction.