After review, we have a consensus from the CHQ MSR leaders that specific LUBA numbers should not be posted to a public site. The numbers are confidential and vary from country to country. Content on the wiki needs to apply to a worldwide audience. Editing out the numbers now. Lindsayre 22:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've deleted the specific dollar figures from this article. I didn't delete the referenced spreadsheet because as far as I can tell it doesn't include any figures to compute the allocation. Lindsayre 22:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion on this page is out-of-date. The new CUBS program has effectively taken the Stake out of the picture in a "control" mode, and put us into a "disaster clean-up" mode. We have to ask the wards to write us checks to move money from a unit with a surplus to a unit with a deficit (if we so desire). We can't stop them from building up a huge surplus to fund some extravagant activity. We have to trust that they will do the right thing, even though they have demonstrated time and time again that they will push the limits just as far as they can to do whatever they want. My finance clerk has washed his hands of the ward budget issues - we have to sit by and wait for the problems to occur before we are expected to go in and fix them. Over the past 15 years as the clerk as we have gone from MIS/FIS to MLS to CUBS, whoever is developing these computer systems keep trying to bypass the Priesthood line of authority and do things the ways that are most convenient for the computer. It happens routinely on both the membership and financial sides of our duties. Seems that the tail keeps wagging the dog. It would have been nice if someone had asked for input from the troops on the ground instead of just dreaming up this pie in the sky system. Having travelled and spoken with clerks outside the Wasatch Front, I understand that there are issues out in the hinterland that needed to be addressed (i.e., it was almost mandatory that one be an accountant to be a finance clerk under the old system), but the pendulum has swung way to far with this new system. The Priesthood line of authority needs to be recognized and allowed to function in the church's computer system. -- Bromac 15:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- This page does need to be updated. I or someone else will try to get to it soon.
- As for the content of your message, I do offer these contrasting views on a couple of points.
- I know for certain that there is no intention to bypass the priesthood line of authority, and certainly not to do things "the ways that are most convenient for the computer." The product managers get extensive input from all sorts of "troops on the ground" in designing and developing these systems. I know of no way in which the line of authority is bypassed.
- A stake is most definitely not out of the picture. Stakes still have the responsibility -- and the tools -- to manage budget allocations to the wards. It's true that the stake needs to do some things differently, but the stake can have as much control as it would like. A stake can adjust the budget allocation percentages on a quarterly basis. There is no way that a ward can build up a huge surplus without the stake knowing about it and allowing it to happen, unless the stake completely closes its eyes as to what is happening in the ward. The stake can even go as far as setting the automatic budget allocation percentages for one or more units to 0. Then the stake can write a check to the ward for as little or as much as it would like.
- I'd recommend that you try to learn the new system and work with it. Although there will be some challenges as we all learn about the new ways of doing things, I think that both the software and our understanding of it will continue to improve, and it will ultimately be much better for everyone.
- Finally, I would note that aside from your reporting that the page is out of date (which is indeed helpful -- thank you!), it works much better to post topics such as this on the LDSTech forum. There are far more people actively involved over there, so the discussions are involve more viewpoints; you might consider doing that for this and future topics. -- Aebrown 17:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)