rongo Posted November 3, 2016 Author Posted November 3, 2016 3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: What special attention do the YW get? They don't even get scouts. They don't have to do Scouts? Advantage: YW. Seriously, at least in the two wards I've been a bishop over, our young women do whatever activities they want to do: firearm shooting, canoeing, crafts, sports, games, service, homemaking and clothing making --- whatever they and their leaders plan. We don't fundraise at all in our ward (as per Church policy, but most units violate the spirit and letter of the near-total ban on fundraising) --- everything is out of the ward budget. Our girls actually end up with more of the budget pie than the boys. I don't assign a specific budget to any organizations, but simply reimburse everything out of "Administration." Organizations get approval for activities and estimate costs. I know how much budget we have as a ward, and oversee any requests and their impact on the total. The YW end up spending more money in the course of a year than the boys do. I have attended the whole week of both girls' and boys' camp every year, and I definitely feel that the girls get the better experience than the Scouting experience. 1
Calm Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 How is the next bishop going to be able to judge budget needs with your approach? (Just curious)
rongo Posted November 3, 2016 Author Posted November 3, 2016 Duncan: Never in my life have I ever been to so many stake conferences in one year and then this last one the Seventy told us to stop having so many meetings well, like quit having so many then!!!!!! Gray: The Seventy in charge of our area said the same thing a few years back! I'm not sure anyone listened, but I wish they would! The Church's clear counsel to reduce and simplify meetings and to preserve as much family time as possible is very hard to implement, in practice, because Church members fight against it. President Packer said that nature abhors a vacuum, and when time is freed up, members happily fill it up with meetings. I have carved out a safe-haven in my wards where meetings really are the bare minimum, sometimes with some fights with the stake, but the last bastion of intrusions on family time is Scouting. Anyone whose parents have served in it knows that, and my wife is bitter about it because both of her parents were Silver Beavers and were never home for the family. Here is the clear counsel from the Brethren, which I use to remind people when leaders start encroaching with needless meetings: ----------------------------------- Boyd K. Packer, “A Plea to Stake Presidents,” Leadership Training Meeting, April 1, 1988. . . . There is another classification of members who may not be poor or destitute but who nevertheless earnestly need relief. Parents struggle to raise families . . . But, if activities cost more in money or time than they can reasonably give, they may be pushed away from the gospel into inactivity . . . [President Packer gives a long recitation of First Presidency letters, beginning in 1939, exhorting leaders to lighten time and money demands of members] That was in 1978. In April of 1982, they printed that in the Priesthood Bulletin. It was repeated verbatim in 1984, 1985, and for the fifth time in 1987. I know of no other message repeated with that frequency. Brethren, as President Romney was wont to say, “How many tellin’s does it take?” . . . You brethren from the Andes are familiar with the llama. A member of the camel family, it has an interesting characteristic. There is a very set limit as to how much this beast of burden will carry. Ninety pounds is the limit. If more weight is placed on its back, it will simply surrender; give up. It will lie down and will not move until some of the burden is lifted. It does not bite or kick or spit. It simply lies down and will not get up until the load is reduced. Think of that, brethren, when you worry about your inactive . . . We stress industry, thrift, and self-reliance only to find these very virtues, once established, may work against us. For [many members], an assessment [they] cannot reasonably meet calls up conflicting emotions. Those feelings . . . are not good feelings for Latter-day Saints. We must never forget to teach the law of consecration and the law of sacrifice. But remember, they are His to enforce, not ours. Though we may require much of the Saints, to impose more than is our right as leaders, however well intentioned, is to presume upon a prerogative that is not ours unless the servants of the Lord direct us . . . There is some risk associated with what I am saying. Perhaps some will excuse themselves and do little or nothing. That is not much of a risk considering the many we lose because they cannot pay the price asked of them . . .” ------------------- Boyd K. Packer, “Let Them Govern Themselves,” Regional Representative Seminar, March 30, 1990 “. . . In recent years we might be compared to a team of doctors issuing prescriptions to cure or to immunize our members against spiritual diseases. Each time some moral or spiritual ailment was diagnosed, we have rushed to the pharmacy to concoct another remedy, encapsulate it as a program, and send it out with pages of directions . . . While we all seem to agree that overmedication, over-programming, is a critically serious problem, we have failed to reduce the treatments. It has been virtually impossible to affect any reduction in programs. Each time we try, advocates cry to high heaven that we are putting spiritual lives . . . at risk . . . [and] we program even heavier doses of interviews, activities, meetings, and assessments . . . We now have ourselves in a corner. For instance, we have reason to be seriously concerned about the lack of reverence in the Church . . . However, I dare not press for the correction of that issue because we do not seem to be able to solve a problem without designing a program [to address it] . . . The hardest ailment to treat is a virtue carried to the extreme. We cannot seem to learn that too much, even of a good thing, or too many good things, like vitamins taken in overdose, can be harmful. In recent years I have felt, and I think I am not alone, that we were losing the ability to correct the course of the Church. You cannot appreciate how deeply I feel about the importance of this . . . unless you know the regard, the reverence, I have for the Book of Mormon and how serious I have taken the warnings of the prophets, particularly Alma and Helaman . . . Local leaders have been effectively conditioned to hold back until programmed as to what to do, how, to whom, when, and for how long. Can you see that when we overemphasize programs . . . we are in danger of losing the inspiration, the resourcefulness, that which should characterize Latter-day Saints? Then the very principle of individual revelation is in jeopardy, and we drift from a fundamental gospel principle . . . [There needs to be] a better balance between families being assessed time and money to support Church activities, and Church activities complementing what families should do for themselves and backing away . . . so they can do it. That is, if all of us will understand and will do it. I repeat, perhaps for one time only we have an opportunity to adjust that balance so that Church activities sustain parents and families rather than the other way around.</p> Now, there will be smaller budgets and fewer activities, fewer programs. That will leave a vacuum. Nothing likes a vacuum. We must resist the temptation to program that vacuum. That space belongs to families. When we cut down on Sundays to the block plan . . . and left some time open, you know what happened. Now brethren, it is their time. Let them use it as they feel to do --- for better or for worse. That is the risk. If we fail to teach them correct principles, teach them the doctrine, they will not know how to govern themselves. If we do, then that vacuum will be filled with prayer and work and study, study for school, for instance, study of the gospel. It will be filled with faith and reverence. It will be filled with the intimate love between husband and wife, with the tender love of parents to children. There will come a safe and virtuous dependency. Latter-day Saints will come to depend upon the Lord instead of upon the headquarters of the Church. We are in mortality to receive a mortal body, to be tested, to prepare for Godhood. There is no testing without choice. Please, for this one time, honor the agency of the members, the families . . . We can effect a course correction and we will see the Church delivered safely to the next generation . . . In conclusion, I once thought the family was unfairly neglected in the Church, particularly in the organization. We have Melchizedek Priesthood quorums to foster the interest of men, the Relief Society for the sisters. We have Aaronic Priesthood quorums for boys, Young Women for girls, Primary for children, and so on . . . But for the family there is no such thing, not so much as a committee. That family has been everybody’s business. Everybody’s business, as we know, is nobody’s business. I . . . worry as we design programs to fit the weak, unstable family, scheduling for men, women, children, youth, young adults, singles, everything, with too little attention paid to the effect it has on families. I remember when some pressed for the written form so families could report their compliance with the family home evening program. We did not permit it. And to this day we have some who want to program formal interviews between parents and their children. I once wondered if we should create an agency to represent the family. But on more serious reflection, I changed my view. Some things cannot be counted and should not be programmed. Matters with deepest doctrinal significance must be left to married couples and parents to decide for themselves . . . We cannot program individual and family prayer . . . The family is apart from and above all other organizations and, under the sealing authority, more enduring than them all. . . The family may suffer both neglect and intrusion because of our penchant to program everything . . . I have but to ask one “what if” question to convince you . . . What if, in the correlation process, we had organized a general board of the family? The very thought of it sends chills of horror through my being . . . If we do as we should, wherever there is a Latter-day Saint family, there the Church stands organized.” -------------------------- Gordon B. Hinckley, “Rise to a Larger Vision of the Work,” New Budget Program Satellite Broadcast, February 18, 1990 “. . . We have gone too far in providing for some beyond what is needed or what is best in terms of the individuals and their families . . . “ --------------------------- Thomas S. Monson, “The Lord’s Way,” New Budget Program Satellite Broadcast, February 18, 1990 “. . . In some respects, many of our . . . activities in recent years have supplanted the home and the family.” ----------------------------- Boyd K. Packer, “Teach Them Correct Principles,” New Budget Program Satellite Broadcast, February 18, 1990. “To many, the announcement [that a drastic reduction in time and money demands on members should take place] came as a surprise, a very welcome surprise. And yet, if you had been listening carefully, you should not have been too surprised. [President Packer repeats the consistent admonitions over the years in this regard through the First Presidency] . . . Did you notice that each of those statements called for a reduction in both time and money required of members? Some of you have asked why this change should come just when the forces of temptation are surrounding [us] as never before . . . Sometimes more can be less and less can be more. Even with all we expend and all we do, we are not doing as well as we should and have little evidence that [extensive] activities secure [our members]. [President Packer quotes extensively from Jacob 5 concerning the concern on the part of leaders for “what more” they could have done for “my vineyard”] It was the servant, it is always the servant, who said, “Is it not the loftiness of thy vineyard --- have not the branches thereof overcome the roots which are good? And because the branches have overcome the roots thereof, behold they grow faster than the strength of the roots, taking strength unto themselves” . . . There is great meaning in Jacob’s parable for the Church in our generation. Meetings and activities can multiply until they take “strength unto themselves” . . . This change . . . will have the effect of returning much of the responsibility . . . to the family where it belongs . . . There [must] be fewer intrusions into the family schedule and in the family purses . . . President Kimball said, “This is a shocking thing to me . . . to come to a realization of what we have been attempting to do, all with the best of intentions.” He said the cost of membership in both time and money was “becoming prohibitive for the members of the Church, and they find it very difficult and sometimes we lose members of the Church because they do not want to admit they cannot afford the things we expect” . . . When we press [members] too hard, we infer that they aren’t good enough . . . If you understand the human ego at all, you will know that [members] will withdraw from activity rather than say they can’t afford the cost [in time and money].” 1
rongo Posted November 3, 2016 Author Posted November 3, 2016 8 minutes ago, Calm said: How is the next bishop going to be able to judge budget needs with your approach? (Just curious) He'll have to figure that out himself. I tried it early in my first go-around, but everyone is really estimating out of thin air, and then you have to go back and adjust the amounts between organizations to reflect the reality. When the whole budget is in one category, it's really easy to know how much is available.
rongo Posted November 3, 2016 Author Posted November 3, 2016 26 minutes ago, Rain said: Ok, thought. An awful lot of pilot programs seem to happen here. Could this possibly be another pilot program of some kind? Still haven't heard about the meetings yet. If we are involved I think someone at round table will know about it even if the one I go to us just cubs. Very possible. I hope not. The key word in "pilot program" is p-r-o-g-r-a-m. Another program. When we're supposed to reduce and simplify them . . .
Calm Posted November 4, 2016 Posted November 4, 2016 2 hours ago, rongo said: He'll have to figure that out himself. I tried it early in my first go-around, but everyone is really estimating out of thin air, and then you have to go back and adjust the amounts between organizations to reflect the reality. When the whole budget is in one category, it's really easy to know how much is available. I hope you leave him instructions indicating this so he doesn't waste his time or gets frustrated with others when they can't find the expected budgets,
rongo Posted November 4, 2016 Author Posted November 4, 2016 Of course! You have to have a detailed "pass down," anyway, about individuals and situations. Going over the finances (including how to process and make donation deposits, issue checks, file away records for the audits, etc.), and, if new to MLS, how the records work, is a given. It can take many weeks to fully "hand it off," with the new bishop calling to ask questions, as needed.
Calm Posted November 4, 2016 Posted November 4, 2016 (edited) I just assumed there was a standard process for finances that was the same for all wards because of the need for tracking, audits, etc.. Interesting to know there is some flexibility. Edited November 4, 2016 by Calm
rongo Posted November 4, 2016 Author Posted November 4, 2016 It's definitely good that there is flexibility. Wards have to follow the financial policies, of course, but within that, the internal budget categories (different organizations, etc.) are open. Welfare has to come out of fast offerings, and any fundraiser proceeds have to go into an "other" account that is specific for a one-time camp --- e.g., "Girls Camp 2017" (this is abused and fudged on all the time in many wards, with illegal multiple fundraisers or extra-purpose uses). What happens is that, based on the quarterly attendance, units get a quarterly allotment. For my ward, this is ca. $3000-$4000 per quarter. Most wards divvy this up among the organizations on paper, some with an annual amount based on projections. I know of many wards where the projections (both predicted budget for the year as well as anticipated expenses) are way off, and an organization may be told that the amount they were told they had isn't feasible and will have to be downsized. This can cause some stress, because plans were in the works that were counting on their "budget." As it is, this year we haven't told any organizations "no" for any activities, and they've all been able to do their activities as planned. All boys' and girls' camps were funded out of the budget. We even took ca. 60+ youth and leaders to see a play (for some youth, it was the first professional play they had seen, and it was a big cultural experience for them). We have around $3300 left for the year, and have a high priest's social, cub scout day camp over Christmas break (ca. $1000), and the ward Christmas party. Instead of that coming out of three separate sub-accounts, it comes out of the ward budget, like our household checkbooks (for those who still use checking).
Recommended Posts