Until the warranty expires. I've noticed that not infrequently those bargains are for brands I've taken a dislike to. Some good stuff goes on sale too, but the really good prices seem to be for the more questionable brands.mrrad wrote:as opposed to someone goes downtown this Friday and, bang! The problem is solved.
2013 FM Budget SLASHED!
-
- Community Administrator
- Posts: 34417
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
- Location: U.S.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
- johnshaw
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2273
- Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:55 pm
- Location: Syracuse, UT
mrrad wrote:Not enough information. Just because the Stake President has concluded that this is related to the change in missionary application ages, that doesn't mean I agree with the conclusion. Sure, the timing might be suspicious. Then again, this could mean that the church is preparing for the possibility that economic conditions at large will remain weak. That will mean less income for people in general which will translate to tithing donations taking a hit too.
In no communication did our Stake President assume or say anything, the quotes in my original post were quotes from the FMG, it was not interpreted by the SP.
“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.”
― Thomas Paine, Common Sense
― Thomas Paine, Common Sense
- johnshaw
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2273
- Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:55 pm
- Location: Syracuse, UT
So if you identify a need in your stake like a 25 year old TV (I found 3 of them in my stake last year) - We have nothing in our stake newer than 15 years old. In my estimation it was exactly as Gary_Miller suggested, nobody asked, nobody insisted, so nothing happened. We made a concerted effort last year and this to identify what we wanted to upgrade, work with FMG to get it on the budget for the following year (2013) - Not insisting it be upgraded that year, working within the system, following the rules, and now, we've been told they are SLASHED. That is a now a 3 year turn-around time for a Stake President. Identify it in 2011 (after budget was completed) wait until 2012 budget process, work through that process, have the budgets signed by SP and FMG, then 6 months later year it was slashed, without any input from the SP on what was slashed. So, it goes back into the queue.. in 2013 we'll budget for it in 2014. Identified in 2011, and then maybe in 2014 it will get an upgrade?
There is one difference that makes the FMG more culpable than a Stake in these items. The FMAT system kicks out every year based on policy/business rules items that should be upgraded. So for instance, in the 4th year of it's life a computer comes up in the FMAT budgeting system. The FMG has every ability to 'deselect' that item before a PFR or SP even examines it. So year after year, the FMG can make the choice for the SP or PFR without them even being aware the system 'suggested' an upgrade happen on that piece of equipment.
Gary_Miller - I agree that the right budget for the right job. I, however, have seen enough obfuscation, or ignorance of policy (I'm not inclined to accuse FMG of outright deception) (I've been told on at least 2 occasions that items are the stake budget, that clearly were NOT, and a quick call to the FM helpdesk confirmed FMG responsibility) - Stakes are paying for things all the time that FM should be paying for (because of ignorance on the stake or FMG side, or the pure ugliness of the process). Because of this, FMG budgets continue to shrink because each time the Stake or ward/branch pays for something it sets a new lower norm for the FMG budget. If the Stake picks up a projector for each meetinghouse in their stake after asking FMG what the right thing to do is, and be told it is the stake responsibility.
There is one difference that makes the FMG more culpable than a Stake in these items. The FMAT system kicks out every year based on policy/business rules items that should be upgraded. So for instance, in the 4th year of it's life a computer comes up in the FMAT budgeting system. The FMG has every ability to 'deselect' that item before a PFR or SP even examines it. So year after year, the FMG can make the choice for the SP or PFR without them even being aware the system 'suggested' an upgrade happen on that piece of equipment.
Gary_Miller - I agree that the right budget for the right job. I, however, have seen enough obfuscation, or ignorance of policy (I'm not inclined to accuse FMG of outright deception) (I've been told on at least 2 occasions that items are the stake budget, that clearly were NOT, and a quick call to the FM helpdesk confirmed FMG responsibility) - Stakes are paying for things all the time that FM should be paying for (because of ignorance on the stake or FMG side, or the pure ugliness of the process). Because of this, FMG budgets continue to shrink because each time the Stake or ward/branch pays for something it sets a new lower norm for the FMG budget. If the Stake picks up a projector for each meetinghouse in their stake after asking FMG what the right thing to do is, and be told it is the stake responsibility.
“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.”
― Thomas Paine, Common Sense
― Thomas Paine, Common Sense
- johnshaw
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2273
- Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:55 pm
- Location: Syracuse, UT
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:42 am
- Location: Emmett, Idaho
I would guess that the only projectors authorized for the use of FMGs funds would be the ones in buildings with satellite dishes for broadcasting General Conference. Anything other than that is not a need but a nice to have, FMs budget probably does not allow for nice to haves.JohnShaw wrote:If the Stake picks up a projector for each meetinghouse in their stake after asking FMG what the right thing to do is, and be told it is the stake responsibility.
- aebrown
- Community Administrator
- Posts: 15153
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
- Location: Draper, Utah
With the Church moving from satellite broadcasts to webcasting, I don't think that's the right test. New buildings may not have satellite dishes but are performing the same broadcast functions using webcasting as an older building that has a satellite dish. So I think your criterion needs to be adjusted to be "buildings used for broadcasts" without specifying the specific broadcast technique.Gary_Miller wrote:I would guess that the only projectors authorized for the use of FMGs funds would be the ones in buildings with satellite dishes for broadcasting General Conference. Anything other than that is not a need but a nice to have, FMs budget probably does not allow for nice to haves.
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.
-
- Community Administrator
- Posts: 34417
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
- Location: U.S.
I think the real question is has the guidelines for the FM group been updated to reflect that?aebrown wrote:With the Church moving from satellite broadcasts to webcasting, I don't think that's the right test. New buildings may not have satellite dishes but are performing the same broadcast functions using webcasting as an older building that has a satellite dish. So I think your criterion needs to be adjusted to be "buildings used for broadcasts" without specifying the specific broadcast technique.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
-
- Member
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:50 pm
- Location: Texas, United States
- Contact:
Interesting thread. I haven't heard anything from our FM, but - then again - my FM doesn't tend to broadcast this info. They keep things tight to the chest.
One interesting bit of trivia: last march we had Bishop Burton here for our stake conference, and someone asked in the leadership session how the finances of the church have fared during the economic hard times. He didn't give numbers, but indicated that tithing donations had actually increased after the economy had gotten worse. He didn't say whether that meant total revenue increased or just the # of full tithe payers increased (while revenue may have fallen), but the message was that the church was in no particular financial distress.
One interesting bit of trivia: last march we had Bishop Burton here for our stake conference, and someone asked in the leadership session how the finances of the church have fared during the economic hard times. He didn't give numbers, but indicated that tithing donations had actually increased after the economy had gotten worse. He didn't say whether that meant total revenue increased or just the # of full tithe payers increased (while revenue may have fallen), but the message was that the church was in no particular financial distress.
- gregwanderson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 702
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:34 pm
- Location: Huntsville, UT, USA
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:42 am
- Location: Emmett, Idaho
My daughter and son in-law are up from Provo visiting. She heard that since the announcement they are housing some MTC missionaries in BYU dorms and also looking to build some other housing. Maybe some of you from that area have heard the same thing. I can only imagine the same thing happening at some of the other MTC as well as the need to build more around the world. I could see where a 20% budget cut across the board could provide some of the funds to build these new buildings.