Transfer money from Budget to "other"

We need to transfer money from the budget to an other category. Reason: Bishop wrote a check for scout camp from the designated other category, but we didn’t have enough money to cover the full cost. So now our “other” category is in the red.
Can I do the transfer in MLS, or do we need to write a check from budget and deposit it in other? I looked at the transfer section on MLS, but it didn’t give a choice of budget for the “from” line.

Thanks
Danny

Without getting into the details of funding for summer camps, the technical procedure to get funds from one major category (budget and Other as discussed here) to another major category is to write a check and then deposit the amount in the same manor as any other donation.

The topic of moving funds between major categories has been discussed in the threrad Policies on Moving Funds Between Two Major Cateogories.

All that needs done is to do a category adjustment to the original expense.

No reason to write another check and then deposit it into the other account.

Gary_Miller wrote:All that needs done is to do a category adjustment to the original expense.

No reason to write another check and then deposit it into the other account.

Yes indeed. And if you need to move only a portion of the expense to Budget, the revised categories can be split with part of the expense charged to Budget and the rest of it charged to Other.

This procedure also works in reverse to transfer expenses from Budget to Other. Our bishop is agent bishop for our building, and at the suggestion of our stake clerk we maintain an Other:Agent Bishop escrow account for this purpose. But sometimes expenses for the library from the Distribution Center or its Staples e-commerce partner get charged to Budget: Distribution Center automatically. We have learned just to recategorize such an expense to the Other:Agent Bishop account without writing a check to transfer funds.

RossEvans wrote:Yes indeed. And if you need to move only a portion of the expense to Budget, the revised categories can be split with part of the expense charged to Budget and the rest of it charged to Other.

I was going to suggest this but then I remembered that MLS wouldn't allow you to write one check that took from Budget and "Other" in the same check. At least, that's how it used to be. Have they changed this? So, if you can't write a check that way I would think you can't revise an expense that way either. If you changed the check from 100% "Other" to 100% Budget then it would work, even if you changed it to multiple categories that were all budget categories. But you couldn't change it from 100% "Other" to 50% Other and 50% Budget.

mrrad wrote:

RossEvans wrote:Yes indeed. And if you need to move only a portion of the expense to Budget, the revised categories can be split with part of the expense charged to Budget and the rest of it charged to Other.

I was going to suggest this but then I remembered that MLS wouldn't allow you to write one check that took from Budget and "Other" in the same check. At least, that's how it used to be. Have they changed this?

MLS will let you write a check taking funds from the Budget account and the Other account. It will as so allow an adjustment to an existing check also using those accounts.

Last year we wrote the check for scout camp from the budget funds and as the individual payments came in and the money from the fund raiser I adjusted the check categories. It was very simple to do.

mrrad wrote:I was going to suggest this but then I remembered that MLS wouldn't allow you to write one check that took from Budget and "Other" in the same check. At least, that's how it used to be. Have they changed this?

Yes, the ability to charge an expense to multiple major categories was added for the US/Canada when we switched to CUBS back in 2010 (other countries had this capability even earlier than that).

Then, yes, I agree that the best solution in this situation is to go back and change the categories of the original check using "View/Update Expenses." The update is immediate and the record is cleaner than the "write a check to yourself" method. Plus, you save the trouble of the extra paperwork and signature-gathering of writing another check.

Thanks for all the help with this. So the question is now this. We wrote the check for (using round numbers) $1000. We only had $200 in the "other camp" account. So we were -$800. Then last week we received $300 from a parent towards the scout camp, so we put that in the "other camp" So now we are only $500 in the red. Is it possible to go into MLS and re-catagorize the original check for $500 Budget (YM) and $500 "other camp", and then we'll be even?

Thanks

Danny

surf40 wrote:Is it possible to go into MLS and re-catagorize the original check for $500 Budget (YM) and $500 "other camp", and then we'll be even?

Yes. That recategorization will change the amount from Other:AMFA:Camp from $200 to $500. That change will cause a $300 transfer out of Other:AMFA:Camp, which will set your new balance to 0. It will also cause a $300 transfer back into Budget:YM (because that category amount on the check will change from $800 to $500).

Yes, that is exactly what I recommend.

Query:

The opening post said this:

"Reason: Bishop wrote a check for scout camp from the designated other category, but we didn’t have enough money to cover the full cost. "

Rule number 1: Tell the bishop to quit writing checks. :p

But. Since the check should have come out of budget, not other, shouldn't you go back and correct the problem by making the entire $1000.00 come out of budget (as the poster indicates was intended) instead of splitting it now? And putting the $300 they got into budget instead of "other?"

Second question: Is it really a problem if the "other" category shows a negative balance? Won't that get caught up as the people pay their camp fee, in this case, disregarding the argument about how camp should be funded...? IWO: Can't you just leave it alone and let the other category catch up as people donated their camp funds? It may show a negative balance at the end of the year, but that would be helpful in future budgeting.

It's not like the check is going to bounce or anything. Budgeting is just an internal (to the ward) thing anyway, isn't it?

TinMan wrote:Second question: Is it really a problem if the "other" category shows a negative balance?

I'll bet if "Other" as a whole goes negative, there's going to be some questions coming down from above.

russellhltn wrote:
I'll bet if "Other" as a whole goes negative, there's going to be some questions coming down from above.

But transferring "budget" money to "other" is okay? If so, couldn't you just do that at the end of the year after the dust all settles?

Personal note: I don't pretend to understand the "budget" system in MLS... As you can tell.

TinMan wrote:But transferring "budget" money to "other" is okay? If so, couldn't you just do that at the end of the year after the dust all settles?

I imagine you'd hear about it before the end of the year.

TinMan wrote:But transferring "budget" money to "other" is okay? If so, couldn't you just do that at the end of the year after the dust all settles?

Personal note: I don't pretend to understand the "budget" system in MLS... As you can tell.

In an ideal world, the ward would budget for Scout camp and make the payment out of Budget funds.

Following Handbook instructions, it is possible to arrive at a situation where the money for Scout camp will wind up in the Other account, either through member payments or that famous one yearly fundraiser. If all of the money for camp is in the Other account, the payment for camp would be made out of the Other account using those funds.

In this particular case, it appears that some of the Scout camp money came from member payments or a fundraiser, but it was not sufficient for all of the camp expense.

Normally, the clerk would then write two checks, one using the Other funds, and one for the balance using the Budget funds. In this case, it appears that the bishop wrote the entire check from the Other account.

And so the proper accounting step is as has been proposed, to transfer the funds from the Budget to the Other account. As others have mentioned, this used to require the writing and redepositing of a check, but can now be done by changing the category of the check in MLS.

In the end (in this case), it will be as if part of camp was paid from Budget and part was paid from Other. So yes, it is okay.

While it seems logical from an accounting perspective to make the transfer at the end of the year, there are two really good reasons to make it now. One, the Other account is overdrawn and should be brought back to zero. Two, if the bishop believes the Other account has received all of the Scouting funds it will receive, there is no reason to wait to settle the difference, especially in view of reason One.

Please note that this is a discussion of MLS and accounting procedures, not a discussion on how Scout camp should have been budgeted for, paid for, fundraised for, or any other kind of for that can be searched for and discovered in other Topics of the Forum. No forking please. [And forgive me for . . . oh, nevermind. (grin)]

lajackson wrote:Normally, the clerk would then write two checks, one using the Other funds, and one for the balance using the Budget funds.

Ever since the CUBS conversion one check can be written with funds coming from multiple categories.

TinMan wrote:Is it really a problem if the "other" category shows a negative balance?

Yes its call debt. Even though the church covers the expense the ward is now in dept.

TinMan wrote:Won't that get caught up as the people pay their camp fee, in this case, disregarding the argument about how camp should be funded...?

You could look at it that way but in reality the ward is spending money they don't have.

TinMan wrote:Can't you just leave it alone and let the other category catch up as people donated their camp funds?

You could if your willing to show a deficient in the other account the whole time your waiting for people to get their funds in. The best way I found to do it if all the money has not been received is to write the check, covering the whole cost, for the budget expenses and then make an adjustment close to the end or the year. That's what I did last year. This year I'm making adjustments to the check categories at the end of each month.

TinMan wrote:It's not like the check is going to bounce or anything.

While it may not bounce you are still spending money you don't have.

TinMan wrote:Budgeting is just an internal (to the ward) thing anyway, isn't it?

While it maybe internal its important as its the only way you can figure out where the funds are suppose to go. Without a budget your just spending without a plan which causes cayuse.

Gary_Miller wrote: While it may not bounce you are still spending money you don't have.

You said this twice, so I guess it is important. It is also what I don't understand. Thanks for your patience in explaining it.

The whole premise of the opening post is that the bishop "wrote the check" out of the "other account" (which didn't have any money in it yet, but was going to get money as camp funds came in) instead of the "budget account" (which apparently did have the money to cover the expense.) If you have the money in the budget account, don't you have the money?

As I understand it, you are given a lump sum from the stake (on a quarterly basis) and a ward is to allocate it in various budget accounts. The Church isn't concerned about these budget accounts, only the lump sum. So if there is money to move around, don't you have the money?

Further as I understand it, "other" accounts are meant to be "pass through accounts." We have a funeral expense "other account" whereby people who don't like to make funeral potatoes for a funeral can donated money to the funeral account and the relief society uses it to purchase the sliced ham. What goes in that account, goes out of that account for funeral expenses. If the account runs dry and ham is needed, the RS president comes to me and we take the money out of the bishop's "administration" account.

We use that administration account for "emergency" expenses outside of organizations annual budgets, as well as office supplies and such.

So, it seems to me that by moving money back and forth from "budgets" and "others" accounts, it sort of defeats the purpose of even having "other" accounts.

I will make a confession here: Every week that we write checks to people out of the budget, a report is printed that I need to sign or initial. I can't remember which. But on that report, right below the list of checks written is a line that says "amount left in budget:" and a number. That is the ONLY thing I pay attention to in the whole budgeting process. As long as that number stays positive, I don't pay much attention to the rest of the budget. That is why I have a CPA and an accountant for a counselor and a clerk. They look at all the individual budgets and keep track of who is spending more than they should and they tell me to have a talk with them. They show me the printed out budgets with several columns that have very little meaning to me. But I pretend to be interested. It is my firm belief that the entire budgeting process was invented by church accountants for other accountants to understand. I have kept track of my family expenses and budget for 40 years. I have kept the expenses and budget for my business for 30 years. I know how to make and understand budgets. But the church's system is beyond me. I gave up trying to figure it out six months into my administration. I just watch that number every week...

Gary_Miller wrote:Without a budget your just spending without a plan which causes cayuse.

On that, we totally agree.

Now if someone can explain how we are supposed to set yearly budgets based on quarterly "estimates" i.e. "guesses," well, chaos can be avoided.

"Dear Young Women's leader: You will have a yearly budget of $1200.00.

Unless it isn't."



Thus the bishops "administration fund," also known in certain circles as "the slush fund."

TinMan wrote:The whole premise of the opening post is that the bishop "wrote the check" out of the "other account" (which didn't have any money in it yet, but was going to get money as camp funds came in) instead of the "budget account" (which apparently did have the money to cover the expense.) If you have the money in the budget account, don't you have the money?

No. The "Other" account truly is a separate account, and you need to treat it as such, because the Church does.

If I have $1000 in my checking account and owe $300 to a credit card company, I can't just say "I've got a total $700 positive balance, so it's all good." I have to pay my credit card bill. Even if that credit card is issued by the same bank where I have my checking account, I still have to pay my credit card bill, or bad things will start to happen.

The same is true for a deficit in the "Other" account. This is not just theory. I know for certain that the Church sends out notices when "Other" has a negative balance, because priesthood leaders have passed on those communications to me (I don't know precisely how quickly or which amounts draw their attention, but it does happen). It matters not one whit how much money is available in the Budget account. The letters are kind, not threatening, but they are quite firm that action must be taken promptly to correct the deficit.

TinMan wrote:So, it seems to me that by moving money back and forth from "budgets" and "others" accounts, it sort of defeats the purpose of even having "other" accounts.

Not so. A specific subcategory of "Other" is used to account for all money that comes in for a specific purpose. That same category is also used to track all expenses for that specific purpose. This is very useful accounting.

Now it's very clear in all the documentation for the "Other" account that there is no requirement or even expectation that the money contributed for that specific purpose will completely cover the cost of the event. So it is common and completely correct to spend all of the money available in the "Other" account that was paid for the specific purpose, and the remainder of the cost comes from Budget.

When the event is over, and all funds have been accounted for, the end result should be that the "Other" subcategory is at zero, and the Budget has been charged for the costs not covered by that subcategory. Along the way, it's possible that some adjustments had to be made to cover (or better yet, avoid) temporary deficits in the "Other" subcategory. But those are just steps towards that end state of the accounts, and in no way defeat the purpose of the "Other" account.

I learned something new today. Thank you.

aebrown wrote: When the event is over, and all funds have been accounted for, the end result should be that the "Other" subcategory is at zero, and the Budget has been charged for the costs not covered by that subcategory. Along the way, it's possible that some adjustments had to be made to cover (or better yet, avoid) temporary deficits in the "Other" subcategory. But those are just steps towards that end state of the accounts, and in no way defeat the purpose of the "Other" account.

Does it work in reverse? IOW: if at the end of the year, I have $300.00 in the "funeral other account" can I just move it to "budget?" Even though the people who donated the money targeted it for funerals?

TinMan wrote:Does it work in reverse? IOW: if at the end of the year, I have $300.00 in the "funeral other account" can I just move it to "budget?" Even though the people who donated the money targeted it for funerals?

No. Remember that the fundamental premise of the "Other" account is that funds are paid for a specific purpose, and spent for that specific purpose.

The instructions for the "Other" account state that if the funds paid into a particular subcategory of "Other" exceed the amount needed, the excess is to be returned to the member. If for some reason that can't be done, the funds are to be designated as surplus and returned to the Church.

Good thing hams freeze.



Thanks again for your patience with me.

I might be seeing this wrong, but the previous comments talk about "moving" funds between accounts. That is not what is happening. No funds are "moving", rather the change is only to which account the funds come from. In other words, the $1000 originally came only from the Other account. The change was to have $500 come from each of budget and other. No funds are "moved" from budget to other.

ggllbb wrote:I might be seeing this wrong, but the previous comments talk about "moving" funds between accounts. That is not what is happening. No funds are "moving", rather the change is only to which account the funds come from. In other words, the $1000 originally came only from the Other account. The change was to have $500 come from each of budget and other. No funds are "moved" from budget to other.

Well, if you originally had $1000 come from Other, and now you have $500 from each of Budget and Other, somehow $500 has to move from Budget to Other. If you examine closely what happens in MLS and in CUBS when you make such a change, you'll see that a transfer is created. You didn't explicitly create a transfer, but a transfer was created nonetheless. So funds really do move.

Thanks for the clarification. Bottom line is, though, that the funds did ultimately come from the Budget, even though they go through Other. It's all accounting.

It's been a few years since I was clerk, but as a councilor in the branch presidency, I try to keep up with how things work. We have only one overworked clerk/executive secretary.

I've just been told by GSC that the only way for Stake to recoup funds from the wards spent on Deacons / Beehives camp is to transfer from Ward-Other to Stake-Other. Then I'm supposed to recategorise all related stake expenses for the camp from Budget to Other?! Does that sound right to everyone else?

We're on CUBS, incase that makes any difference.

dannykos wrote:I've just been told by GSC that the only way for Stake to recoup funds from the wards spent on Deacons / Beehives camp is to transfer from Ward-Other to Stake-Other. Then I'm supposed to recategorise all related stake expenses for the camp from Budget to Other?! Does that sound right to everyone else?

Does not sound right to me. Since a Deacons/Beehive camp would be considered a Youth Conference all expenses would come from the Budget allowance not the other account. If the wards are paying part of the costs then the correct way would be for the wards to write a check , from the budget allowance, to the stake and the stake deposit the check into the Stake Budget.

Well I've always been told that we shouldn't write cheques between units, but that was 'pre-CUBS' - so perhaps the procedure has changed?

The wards would be writing a cheque from the Other account where the funds that have been raised would be deposited. Then we'd be paying into the Stake budget account - from where we had incurred the expenses.

GSC seemed to be intimating that raised funds should be both collected into, and dispursed out of the Other account. (Ward & Stake).

Hmm…

Gary_Miller wrote:

dannykos wrote:I've just been told by GSC that the only way for Stake to recoup funds from the wards spent on Deacons / Beehives camp is to transfer from Ward-Other to Stake-Other. Then I'm supposed to recategorise all related stake expenses for the camp from Budget to Other?! Does that sound right to everyone else?

Does not sound right to me. Since a Deacons/Beehive camp would be considered a Youth Conference all expenses would come from the Budget allowance not the other account. If the wards are paying part of the costs then the correct way would be for the wards to write a check , from the budget allowance, to the stake and the stake deposit the check into the Stake Budget.

We in the UK have just been transferred on to the CUBS system, in the last month, so are still getting to grips with this new system. We haven't been advised, so far, if in fact we would write cheques to transfer funds between Ward/Stake, Stake/Ward.

Same here - I'm the other side of the M25 from you

The whole Budget setting / reporting bit looks totally incomprehensible to me!

dannykos wrote:Well I've always been told that we shouldn't write cheques between units, but that was 'pre-CUBS' - so perhaps the procedure has changed?

The wards would be writing a cheque from the Other account where the funds that have been raised would be deposited. Then we'd be paying into the Stake budget account - from where we had incurred the expenses.

GSC seemed to be intimating that raised funds should be both collected into, and dispursed out of the Other account. (Ward & Stake).

Hmm…

Here in the US writing checks between units has always been how we did this kind of thing. But things very well my be different there in the UK so I can't help you there.

However, by policy raised funds should be deposited into the Other account. Since we transitioned to CUBS if we have expenses that were paid out of Budget but which should be covered by Other funds, we make category adjustments to at least some of the expenses. Sometimes this means splitting an expense between Other and Budget if there isn't enough in the Other account to cover the expense completely.

That seems a bit convoluted. Processing expenses, and then going back over them one the raised funds have been received, and re-categorising based on the split!?

Oh well.

dannykos wrote:Same here - I'm the other side of the M25 from you

The whole Budget setting / reporting bit looks totally incomprehensible to me!

I think the whole of the UK went over at the same time!

I'm not rushing the change this year. From a quick look at the system, I will be adding the Budget amounts for next year, over the next couple of months so I don't have a mad rush at the beginning of January 2014. In theory we shouldn't need to use spreadsheets to track expenses etc., as it should all be done in MLS. Hopefully.

I had a session with our Stake Clerk last week. He has a background in finance and certainly didn't mention anything about writing cheques between units!

I did not notice that you were in the UK since I don't know the guidelines for funding of activities especially camps and youth conferences in the UK I'm not sure how they would be handled.

In the US we are only allowed to do fund raising for one long term camp. Usually that would be scout camps and Girls camp. If the camps are combined as I believe you are stating with Deacons / Beehives camp it would be considered a Youth Conference with must be funded out of the Budget allowance and not by participate costs or or fund raising.

Thats why I said what I said.

Handbook 2: 13.4: "Youth conferences are to be funded from the stake or ward budget. Members should not be asked to pay for youth conferences."

As for the events that you can fund-raise for:
From 13.2.8:
"1. One annual extended Scout camp or similar activity for young men.
2. One annual young women camp or similar activity.
3. One annual day camp or similar activity for Primary children ages 8 through 11.
4. Optional activities as outlined in 13.5."

Item #4 requires authorization from above the stake level to charge for it. So I guess it comes down to what "or similar activity" is.

I'd think you'd want all the money raised to go into "Other", for the simple reason that you'd want a clean paper trail showing that all money raised was spent on the intended event or refunded. Transfer from budget to "other" to make up for any differences would be fine. Paying some costs out of budget would be fine as well, but might make it harder to know what the entire cost of the event was.

But depositing raised funds into budget or transferring from "Other" to budget raises red flags that would require further study to see if all guidelines were being met.

Gary_Miller wrote:Since a Deacons/Beehive camp would be considered a Youth Conference all expenses would come from the Budget allowance not the other account.

I don't follow the logic. First of all, Deacons and Beehives don't normally participate in youth conferences, and second of all, I can't imagine any policy that magically turns a camp into a youth conference. It's not clear from the original post that the slash between "Deacons" and "Beehives" means "and" -- it could just as easily mean "or". But even if it is a single camp involving both deacons and Beehives, I don't see why that couldn't be a camp that falls under the "one annual camp" policy that allows funding from Other when Budget funds are insufficient.

aebrown wrote:I don't follow the logic. First of all, Deacons and Beehives don't normally participate in youth conferences, and second of all, I can't imagine any policy that magically turns a camp into a youth conference. It's not clear from the original post that the slash between "Deacons" and "Beehives" means "and" -- it could just as easily mean "or". But even if it is a single camp involving both deacons and Beehives, I don't see why that couldn't be a camp that falls under the "one annual camp" policy that allows funding from Other when Budget funds are insufficient.

Using the logic that the funding policy specifically separates YM and YW camps (HB2 13.2.8). As well as the use of the words "do not usually participate in youth conferences" in HB2 13.6.14, Participation of Youth under 14 Years of Age. As well as dannykos use of words in post #29 "Deacons/Beehives camp" in which camp is a singular term, implies that there was one combined (COED) camp which would constitute as a Youth Conference for the 12 - 13 year olds, separate from the 14 - 18 youth conference.

That argument still makes no sense to me, but we'll just have to wait to hear a reply from dannykos to resolve the ambiguities.

aebrown wrote:Now it's very clear in all the documentation for the "Other" account that there is no requirement or even expectation that the money contributed for that specific purpose will completely cover the cost of the event. So it is common and completely correct to spend all of the money available in the "Other" account that was paid for the specific purpose, and the remainder of the cost comes from Budget.

Can you provide the source location for the documentation you reference for the "Other" account so I can reference in the future? Thanks!

milleju wrote:

aebrown wrote:Now it's very clear in all the documentation for the "Other" account that there is no requirement or even expectation that the money contributed for that specific purpose will completely cover the cost of the event. So it is common and completely correct to spend all of the money available in the "Other" account that was paid for the specific purpose, and the remainder of the cost comes from Budget.

Can you provide the source location for the documentation you reference for the "Other" account so I can reference in the future? Thanks!

Go to the RKATS site, login and then search for 'the other category'. The first search result (with the title 'The "Other" Category') covers many of the principles and practices related to the 'Other' category. You can also just follow this link: https://www.lds.org/callings/melchizede ... y?lang=eng

It would really be nice to be able to transfer funds from "Other" to "Budget" and vice versa like the good old days. For instance, we had too much sitting in the "Other" categories that had been sitting there for over a year, and the auditor suggested we do something with it. Reimbursement requests and other expenses from those "Other" categories just weren't coming in fast enough. So, we had to write ourselves a check, and deposit it as a donation in to the various budgets. I guess I could have gone in to the donation batches (there were several that were processed over a year before), but decided to do the check thing.

jasonfitt wrote:It would really be nice to be able to transfer funds from "Other" to "Budget" and vice versa like the good old days.

I'm pretty sure that's deliberate. Note that by policy you can't just convert left over funds in "other" to add to your budget. Any remainder that can't be refunded should have been sent to the Corporation of the President.

I don't see as carrying a balance in "Other" category is a problem as long as the individual sub-accounts that represent specific activities are closed in a reasonable length of time after the event.

jasonfitt wrote:It would really be nice to be able to transfer funds from "Other" to "Budget" and vice versa like the good old days. For instance, we had too much sitting in the "Other" categories that had been sitting there for over a year, and the auditor suggested we do something with it.

If this was the case then your unit is ether collecting to much from individual participant fees or to much from fund raisers. Or maybe you don't need to do ether because you have enough in the Budget to cover expenses.

jasonfitt wrote: Reimbursement requests and other expenses from those "Other" categories just weren't coming in fast enough.

Or not being taken out or the proper category in the first place.

jasonfitt wrote:So, we had to write ourselves a check, and deposit it as a donation in to the various budgets. I guess I could have gone in to the donation batches (there were several that were processed over a year before), but decided to do the check thing.

Which is against the Handbook of instructions, HB1 14.7.2. under General Principles and Guidelines.

The proper thing to do would have to 1) reimburse money back to the individuals since you did not need all the fund collected, or 2) Designate it for next years camps, or 3) Purchase some equipment need for YW and YM camps.

russellhltn wrote:I don't see as carrying a balance in "Other" category is a problem as long as the individual sub-accounts that represent specific activities are closed in a reasonable length of time after the event.

The audit sees it as a problem if the funds in the other category is not designated for a specific purpose and spent in a reasonable amount of time.

The whole principle is to use the Budget allowance for every thing including camps. However, the church realizes that the cost for camp can be more than the Budget allowance can handle so there are some exceptions for long term camps and camp equipment.

milleju wrote:

aebrown wrote:Now it's very clear in all the documentation for the "Other" account that there is no requirement or even expectation that the money contributed for that specific purpose will completely cover the cost of the event. So it is common and completely correct to spend all of the money available in the "Other" account that was paid for the specific purpose, and the remainder of the cost comes from Budget.

Can you provide the source location for the documentation you reference for the "Other" account so I can reference in the future? Thanks!

The source is the guidelines for Funding Activities that you can fund part of the camp from the budget allowance and part for the money collected for that specific camp and placed in the other category.

HB2 13.2.8 Funding for Activities
......
Stake and ward budget funds should be used to pay for all activities, programs, and supplies. Members should not pay fees to participate. Nor should they provide materials, supplies, rental or admission fees, or long-distance transportation at their own expense. Activities in which members provide food may be held if doing so does not place undue burdens on them.

Possible exceptions to the funding policy in the preceding paragraph are listed below. If the ward budget does not have sufficient funds to pay for the following activities, leaders may ask participants to pay for part or all of them:

1. One annual extended Scout camp or similar activity for young men.
2. One annual young women camp or similar activity.
3. One annual day camp or similar activity for Primary children ages 8 through 11.
4. Optional activities as outlined in 13.5.

If funds from participants are not sufficient, the bishop may authorize one group fund-raising activity annually that complies with the guidelines in 13.6.8.

13.6.8 Fund-Raising Activities

Fund-raising activities are not usually approved because expenses for stake and ward activities are paid with budget funds. As an exception, a stake president or bishop may authorize one group fund-raising activity each year. Such an activity may be held to raise funds for the following purposes only:

1. To help pay the cost of one annual camp or similar activity as outlined in 13.2.8.
2. To help purchase equipment that the unit needs for annual camps as outlined in 13.2.9.

Gary_Miller wrote:

russellhltn wrote:I don't see as carrying a balance in "Other" category is a problem as long as the individual sub-accounts that represent specific activities are closed in a reasonable length of time after the event.

The audit sees it as a problem if the funds in the other category is not designated for a specific purpose and spent in a reasonable amount of time.

Agreed. But I think some people see a balance in "other" and immediately assume there's a problem. I'm saying that the parent category of "other" could carry a balance for years and not be a problem as long as all the sub-accounts are compliant.

Gary_Miller wrote:The whole principle is to use the Budget allowance for every thing including camps.

I understand what you are saying, but in the context of this thread, it might be misunderstood.

I'm saying that to keep one's books clean, all funds collected should go into a specific "other" sub-account. Between transfers from budget and expenses charged to the "other" sub-account, the account is brought back to zero. If that's done then it's easy to see that all funds raised went toward the event. But if there's ever a transfer from "other" to budget, then the scope of inquiry has to expand to see if the expenses paid from budget for the event covers the transfer. If it does not, then not ALL of the fund-raising went into the event - some ended up enlarging someone's budget.

By all means, use as much budget to fund the activity as possible. But if one runs all the funding though the budget account, then you can end up with less-than-transparent bookkeeping.

russellhltn wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote:

russellhltn wrote:I don't see as carrying a balance in "Other" category is a problem as long as the individual sub-accounts that represent specific activities are closed in a reasonable length of time after the event.

The audit sees it as a problem if the funds in the other category is not designated for a specific purpose and spent in a reasonable amount of time.

Agreed. But I think some people see a balance in "other" and immediately assume there's a problem. I'm saying that the parent category of "other" could carry a balance for years and not be a problem as long as all the sub-accounts are compliant.

That is because there is a problem. Keeping the funds in the parent category is will get the unit an audit exception for sure. Funds in the other category is suppose to be for a specific purpose therefore should have their own sub-category.

russellhltn wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote:The whole principle is to use the Budget allowance for every thing including camps.

I understand what you are saying, but in the context of this thread, it might be misunderstood.

I'm saying that to keep one's books clean, all funds collected should go into a specific "other" sub-account.

Correct, but I don't think "should" is the correct word it leads to the belief that there are options. In this instant the correct word would be "must".

russellhltn wrote:Between transfers from budget and expenses charged to the "other" sub-account, the account is brought back to zero. If that's done then it's easy to see that all funds raised went toward the event. But if there's ever a transfer from "other" to budget, then the scope of inquiry has to expand to see if the expenses paid from budget for the event covers the transfer. If it does not, then not ALL of the fund-raising went into the event - some ended up enlarging someone's budget.

There is no need for a transfer when you write the check out you just ensure that you charge to the proper category. If the funds in the other is intended to be used for the purpose of the expense then use the other account. If there is not enough funds in the other to cover the total expense put the rest of the expense in the proper budget category.

russellhltn wrote:By all means, use as much budget to fund the activity as possible. But if one runs all the funding though the budget account, then you can end up with less-than-transparent bookkeeping.

All funding for an activity should be ran through the budget allowance. Unless the Bishop decides there is insufficient budget funds and funds are then collected from individual participants or through a fund raiser for the specific Camp or other authorized purpose, at which time you should put the expense against the specific other category.

There should never be any expenses in the other category unless there is enough funds in the specific other category to cover the expense.

Gary_Miller wrote:That is because there is a problem. Keeping the funds in the parent category is will get the unit an audit exception for sure. Funds in the other category is suppose to be for a specific purpose therefore should have their own sub-category.

There shouldn't be funds in the parent category, but doesn't the balance of the parent reflect the balance of all the subs as well?

russellhltn wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote:That is because there is a problem. Keeping the funds in the parent category is will get the unit an audit exception for sure. Funds in the other category is suppose to be for a specific purpose therefore should have their own sub-category.

There shouldn't be funds in the parent category, but doesn't the balance of the parent reflect the balance of all the subs as well?

No, the bottom line reflects the balance of all the categories including the parent. The only thing that is ever put in the parent category is interest, which should be move to a subcategory occasionally.

I never treat the other account as a whole since the funds are suppose to be for specific purposes I always treat it a separate accounts. Where as for Missionary or Budget I look at the bottom line.

Gary_Miller wrote:

jasonfitt wrote:It would really be nice to be able to transfer funds from "Other" to "Budget" and vice versa like the good old days. For instance, we had too much sitting in the "Other" categories that had been sitting there for over a year, and the auditor suggested we do something with it.

So, we had to write ourselves a check, and deposit it as a donation in to the various budgets. I guess I could have gone in to the donation batches (there were several that were processed over a year before), but decided to do the check thing.

Which is against the Handbook of instructions, HB1 14.7.2. under General Principles and Guidelines.

The proper thing to do would have to 1) reimburse money back to the individuals since you did not need all the fund collected, or 2) Designate it for next years camps, or 3) Purchase some equipment need for YW and YM camps.

Writing a check to ourselves is what the stake clerk suggested we do, because the members were already reimbursed...just from the wrong budget categories. Rather than open up several old payment batches spanning the last 2-3 years to change the categories, we opted to write a check to ourselves instead to reimburse those categories that the expenses were taken out of. So we actually did not go against HB1 14.7.2, in my estimation, because it wasn't excess funds and we couldn't designate it for next years camps because the money was already spent.

jasonfitt wrote:Writing a check to ourselves is what the stake clerk suggested we do, because the members were already reimbursed...just from the wrong budget categories. Rather than open up several old payment batches spanning the last 2-3 years to change the categories, we opted to write a check to ourselves instead to reimburse those categories that the expenses were taken out of. So we actually did not go against HB1 14.7.2, in my estimation, because it wasn't excess funds and we couldn't designate it for next years camps because the money was already spent.

From the sound of it, it would appear that the unit was able to cover all the expenses out of the budget allowance so would have had no need to charge an individual Participant Fee or do a fund raiser.

Sorry for the silence - the Camps I referred to were indeed two separate and distinct camps, one for Deacons and one for Beehives. We do that in an EFY year, so the 12-13 year olds have something to look forward to – and also so they get equal benefit of the funds raised that year.

Ultimately the policy now seems to be that we collect funds into a specific other account at a ward level - and then stake pays for the event from stake budget funds. Stake then does a ward to stake transfer from Other to Other, and then re-categorises various camp expenses to Other - to use up all the transferred funds.

Does that seem to make sense - and be how everyone else is doing it?

The answer to carrying large Other account balances is to reduce fundraising efforts until the balances are at a more sensible level, rather than just trying to raise as much as possible.

dannykos wrote:Ultimately the policy now seems to be that we collect funds into a specific other account at a ward level - and then stake pays for the event from stake budget funds. Stake then does a ward to stake transfer from Other to Other, and then re-categories various camp expenses to Other - to use up all the transferred funds.

Does that seem to make sense - and be how everyone else is doing it?

All of it makes sense to me except the transfer fro ward to stake however you are in the UK and I know due to the banking system things are a little different. In the US we would write a check to the stake instead of transferring the money.

The rest of what the stake is doing re-categorizing the expense from budget to other would be the correct way of doing this. That is what we do in my ward since our fund raiser is in the fall and we have to have Scout Camp payed for in the spring.

thanks for the info

Gary_Miller wrote:

jasonfitt wrote:Writing a check to ourselves is what the stake clerk suggested we do, because the members were already reimbursed...just from the wrong budget categories. Rather than open up several old payment batches spanning the last 2-3 years to change the categories, we opted to write a check to ourselves instead to reimburse those categories that the expenses were taken out of. So we actually did not go against HB1 14.7.2, in my estimation, because it wasn't excess funds and we couldn't designate it for next years camps because the money was already spent.

From the sound of it, it would appear that the unit was able to cover all the expenses out of the budget allowance so would have had no need to charge an individual Participant Fee or do a fund raiser.

You would be correct. I was not involved in the decision making at the time, so they had a fundraiser even though we had enough in the ward budget to cover the camp expenses. My guess is they weren't aware that we had enough, or they weren't aware they could use funds from the budget allowance. In any case, I'm going to mention this to our bishop before he meets with the auxiliaries to set the 2014 budget.

jasonfitt wrote:so they had a fundraiser even though we had enough in the ward budget to cover the camp expenses.

It's possible they had enough in the budget to front the money, but not enough to pay for the camp and fund the ward for the rest of the year.

russellhltn wrote:

jasonfitt wrote:so they had a fundraiser even though we had enough in the ward budget to cover the camp expenses.

It's possible they had enough in the budget to front the money, but not enough to pay for the camp and fund the ward for the rest of the year.

Russell, read post #45. The problem came up when the auditor discovered to much money in the other account that had been there over a year. All expenses were paid for/reimburse from the Budget allotment not from the other account, Post #54. If the ward was not in the negative at the end of the year then its obvious that there was enough in the Budget to cover the cost and no fund raiser should have ever been needed.

jasonfitt wrote:You would be correct. I was not involved in the decision making at the time, so they had a fundraiser even though we had enough in the ward budget to cover the camp expenses.

I unnderstand your just the one who has to fix the problem. Aren't you lucky.

jasonfitt wrote: My guess is they weren't aware that we had enough,

My guess is that they did not even try and figure out if they had enough or not. I would bet that they had a really good fundraiser that had been going on for years so they just kept it going in fear of losing their fundraiser altogether.

jasonfitt wrote:or they weren't aware they could use funds from the budget allowance.

Not likely since units have been able directed since the inception of the Budget Allowance to pay for all activities out of the budget allowance. With the guidelines that fundraising was allowed for camps if necessary.

jasonfitt wrote: In any case, I'm going to mention this to our bishop before he meets with the auxiliaries to set the 2014 budget.

If your the finance clerk why don't you give the Bishop a suggested budget based on past expenditures before he meets with the auxiliaries to get their input. That way he has some Idea on what kind of budget to expect. If possible try and use the last three years.

Also please note when you make this adjustment by moving funds form other to Budget its very likely you will end up with a large carryover at the end of the year. Maybe time to think about purchasing some equipment for camp, stocking up on, sacrament meeting supplies, Copier paper, Copier toner cartridges, clerks printer ink, ect.. before the end of the year or your stake may just take the money since its not marked for anything specific.

Sorry for bringing up an old thread - this appears to be close to what I'm looking for but after reading this and a few other threads, I couldn't find the exact answer - or maybe didn't understand it...

So we need to prepay for Scout camp basically right now (down payments). The boys are going to do the annual fundraiser, and pay for the rest themselves for what the fundraiser doesn't cover. However, we don't have that money yet. So we have to pay for camp out of the budget since the district is asking for the money now. Which is fine, we have the money in the budget.

But, when the fundraiser takes place next month and then the boys start paying the rest, that money comes into the Other account, correct? And then... since camp has already been paid for by the ward out of the budget, what do we do with that Other money?

I THINK the correct answer (based on reading this thread) is that we could then go back and change the budget checks that we wrote to the Scout district and make them Other checks, which would then use the Other money that we will have received, and (virtually) put the money back in the budget.

Is this correct? Thanks for your help.

mwgrover wrote:But, when the fundraiser takes place next month and then the boys start paying the rest, that money comes into the Other account, correct? And then... since camp has already been paid for by the ward out of the budget, what do we do with that Other money?

I THINK the correct answer (based on reading this thread) is that we could then go back and change the budget checks that we wrote to the Scout district and make them Other checks, which would then use the Other money that we will have received, and (virtually) put the money back in the budget.

Is this correct? Thanks for your help.

Just as you stated you go into the expense/check and change/correct it to the other money.

You can make the corrections as the money comes or wait until you feel you have received most of the money from the fund raiser and do an adjustment then. I prefer to wait and do the adjustment when I have all the funds in. However, you may want to do it as it comes in so the budget does not look like its overspent.

I made the mistake of doing this once where the expense had occurred in the previous year. I don't recall the specifics, but it caused issues that ultimately forced me to back it out and write a check.