Other:Scouts

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

jdlessley wrote: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 don't want to get into a debate on this topic, which has been discussed many times. But contrary to your absolute position on this, I can certainly read Section 13.6.8 and see how it could easily be interpreted to allow funds to be carried over. It simply mentions one annual fund raising activity and one annual camp. But it doesn't directly tie a particular year's fund raising activity to that year's camp. Just because we are talking about one fund raising activity per year and one camp per year doesn't mean that they have to take place in the same year.

I can certainly see how a stake president or bishop might interpret that section the way you propose, but I don't see how he must accept only that interpretation. Thus it is a matter for the local stake president and bishops to decide.

aebrown wrote:Just because we are talking about one fund raising activity per year and one camp per year doesn't mean that they have to take place in the same year.

That is why I asked specifically about the situation. It was not clear whether the fund-raiser had paid for the 2012 camps and the excess of those funds no were going to rollover to pay for 2013 camps.

aebrown wrote:Thus it is a matter for the local stake president and bishops to decide.

That again is why I asked whether he, the stake clerk, had counseled with the stake president before giving those instructions to the ward clerks.

jdlessley wrote:

aebrown wrote:Just because we are talking about one fund raising activity per year and one camp per year doesn't mean that they have to take place in the same year.

That is why I asked specifically about the situation. It was not clear whether the fund-raiser had paid for the 2012 camps and the excess of those funds no were going to rollover to pay for 2013 camps.

I don't think you are understanding what I said. I am saying that one entirely reasonable interpretation of the official policy in 13.6.8 is that it is completely acceptable to have a fund-raising activity in one year that provides the funds for an activity that takes place in another year.

You said "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." That seems to flatly contradict what I just said. I'm not trying to say whether your position or the one I proposed is correct, but I want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

aebrown wrote:But contrary to your absolute position on this...

My position is not absolute. I am asking to understand how the handbook is being interpreted and by whom (stake clerk's without counsel with stake president or stake president's).

aebrown wrote:I don't think you are understanding what I said.

You are correct, I may not. I will concede after careful study of the words used in the handbook there is room for at least three possible interpretations. I have been influenced by the one same interpretation three stake presidents in three different geographic locations have made which is more conservative and restrictive.

aebrown wrote:It simply mentions one annual fund raising activity and one annual camp. But it doesn't directly tie a particular year's fund raising activity to that year's camp. Just because we are talking about one fund raising activity per year and one camp per year doesn't mean that they have to take place in the same year.

I can certainly see how a stake president or bishop might interpret that section the way you propose, but I don't see how he must accept only that interpretation. Thus it is a matter for the local stake president and bishops to decide.

Although one year's fundraiser doesn't have to be for that same year's camp, doesn't the fundraiser still have to pegged for one annual camp? That is, a fundraiser can be targeted to pay for camp in 2012, 2013, or 2014, but not all three simultaneously? I think an issue arises when funds raised for camp in Year 1 get rolled over to pay for camp in Year 2.

It raises a question of what to do when a fundraiser to too successful.

However, in the case of funds coming from families, it seems to me that every effort should be made to refund the excess.

allenjpl wrote:Although one year's fundraiser doesn't have to be for that same year's camp, doesn't the fundraiser still have to pegged for one annual camp? That is, a fundraiser can be targeted to pay for camp in 2012, 2013, or 2014, but not all three simultaneously? I think an issue arises when funds raised for camp in Year 1 get rolled over to pay for camp in Year 2.

I don't see that as the only possible interpretation. What is the meaning of "one annual camp"? Does it mean one camp per year, or only one camp which occurs annually? If you take it as meaning only one camp per year, then what does "one group fund-raising activity each year" mean? Does that mean one per organization, or only one per ward? If it means one per ward, then it can "help pay the cost of one annual camp" and thus if "one annual camp" means only one camp, then only one organization can benefit, and all other organizations can't use the fund raiser. If you take a hard line on the meaning of "one" in one context, then to be consistent, you have to take that same stance on the meaning of "one" everywhere.

Now I am fully aware that any of those points can be disagreed with (and I personally don't tend to agree with them all), but my overall point is that some people are drawing conclusions that are not necessarily supported by the totality of the text of Handbook 2. Thus I keep coming back to the stake president and bishop carefully and prayerfully reading the policy and then deciding what it means for their area of responsibility.

Lets not forget the Handbook advises that all activities should be paid for from budget funds, and in cases where budget funds are not sufficient for summer camp, youth and their families should be asked to pay the excess necessary.

Only when the family cannot pay, should we invoke the authorized fundraising activities.

I think the spirit of the guidelines in the handbook revolve around self-reliance and frugality. At times, the geographic makeup of some wards in my stake has allowed units to raise funds well in excess of their need. Those units have been counseled to reduce their fundraising efforts and bring their program back in line with guidelines set forth by local and world leaders.

daveywest wrote:Lets not forget the Handbook advises that all activities should be paid for from budget funds, and in cases where budget funds are not sufficient for summer camp, youth and their families should be asked to pay the excess necessary.

Only when the family cannot pay, should we invoke the authorized fundraising.

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.

This is where I see the greatest abuse <-- My personal opinion. I question on a regular basis a budget that 'relies' on the fact that we can do fundraisers. I believe that fundraisers have generally become a way to increase the amount of money we can use in our budget for things not related to the youth. I think it can be a slippery slope, but, I advise, those with the Keys make the decisions.

jdlessley wrote: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.

aebrown wrote: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.

waynecooke wrote:"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.

waynecooke wrote:"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."

JohnShaw wrote: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?"

wrigjef wrote: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.

JohnShaw wrote: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.

JohnShaw wrote: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.

JohnShaw wrote: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.