Set yearly budgets based on quarterly "estimates"

TinMan wrote: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.

Its really quite simple. When I'm setting up the next years budget I use and average estimate of the last 4 quarters. And as the year goes alone that gets adjusted as the actual budget gets sent down to the ward each month. I have also developed a spread sheet which enables me to adjust the next quarter budget based on the current quarters quarterly report. For the most part I'm usually within $100 - $200 of what my averages were at the beginning of the year, and usually an increase. The only time there is a drastic change (decrease) is if there is a big fluctuation in move outs for a quarter.

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

Unless it isn't."

In my ideal world organizations would not just be handed a total amount for the year but would give the bishop a detail budget of what they estimate their activity costs for the year will be. That way a decision can be made at the beginning of the budget process on wither or not a activity can be supported. Wither or not we need to ask participants to help fund long term camp. And wither or not we are going to need to do a fund raiser to help out.

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

We don't have an administration fund we just don't allocate all of the estimated budget to the organizations. That way if any one quarterly actuals come in lower than the estimate we are covered. For example on 5 June our unassigned annual budget projection was $543.32 however since the third quarters projections came in lower than what was estimated the unassigned annual budget projection on 11 June is now at $334.32.

Using this method we should never have to make an negative adjustment to any of the organization budget.

so, just to be clear to me, you adjust the budgets every quarter?

And in spite of the extensive budget program in MLS, you keep a separate spread sheet?

TinMan wrote:so, just to be clear to me, you adjust the budgets every quarter?

I only adjust the Quarterly Allowance Estimate not the organizations budgets.

TinMan wrote:And in spite of the extensive budget program in MLS, you keep a separate spread sheet?

The spread sheet I was speaking of above is one I developed for the purpose of figuring out the next quarterly allowance. It pretty much looks just like the sheet that is sent out to the wards that show what your next Projected/Actual Quarterly Budget Allowance. The advantage of my spreed sheet is it allows me to figure out what the next quarter budget allowance will be using the percentages that the parent unit is using.

I do have another spreed sheet that is basically looks just like the Budget Allowance Summary report that I use instead of the MLS reports because it was easier to breakout and link to a separate worksheet for each organization and eliminated the income and transfer columns that just clutter the report in MLS. All I do with this is enter the same figures from the Budget Allowance Summary report from MLS into my spreadsheet and it links to a each organization worksheet.

While its all the same information from MLS and I can do the same-thing in MLS it just easier to read for the organization leaders. It also helps to figure out the next years budget as I have it linked to the last three years of budget data so can come up with an average very easily.

Here's how we do it in my stake (I'm at the stake level, but the same process works at the ward level):

1. In November, I project the budget allocation for the coming year, based on the last year and any consistent trends. I put the estimated amount into a spreadsheet.
2. Then under the direction of my stake president, I gather requests from the auxiliary leaders and any high councilors or others who have reason to request budget for the activities and other expenses for the coming year.
3. I enter those requests in the spreadsheet, along with detail sections that were supplied by the auxiliary leaders (e.g., the YW president would have line items for camp, activities, office supplies, refreshments, etc.)
4. The stake presidency reviews these requests, and makes adjustments as necessary to make the individual budgets fit within the overall projected budget.
5. We make sure that budgeted expenses are less than the projected allocations.
6. Once the budget is approved, we enter the individual organization budgets into the separate subcategories of Budget in MLS, and also enter the estimated quarterly budget allocations.
7. As each quarterly allocation arrives from CHQ, MLS automatically changes the estimated quarterly allocation into an actual amount. We review these adjustments, but invariably our conservative budgeting gives enough of a cushion that even if the allocation is less than expected, there is no problem with expenses exceeding the budget. Thus there is never a need to tell organizations in the middle of the year that their budget has been reduced.

I find a spreadsheet to be helpful in the planning phase, but after that, I use MLS. I don't see a need for tracking subcategories of Budget outside of MLS.

I share TinMan's observation that, increasingly, the software and instructions for tracking finances in the church seem more professional-accountant-friendly than they are non-accountant-friendly. Some things are just unnecessarily complicated. (I'm glad I'm not the one doing the marathon audits these days.) And, without rehashing the details, I think I can kindly say that the transition to CUBS in 2010 wasn't as smooth as it should have been.

Among the problems in late 2010 was the emphasis on quarterly budgeting vs. annual budgeting. I know one ward finance clerk who was so convinced of the importance of quarterly budgeting that he was tracking every single budget expense in a spreadsheet on his home computer. You see, MLS can't really do quarterly budgeting for each auxiliary, so he wasn't using MLS to track any budget data. Of course, this meant that if anyone wanted a budget report he'd have to promise to bring it the following Sunday because it simply wasn't in MLS. (If you looked up the ward budget, every allocation was zero… except in the quarterly budget spreadsheet at his house.)

It was quite a mess to straighten out. And, because the auxiliary leaders had limited access to the budget reports, they were afraid to spend much for a couple of years. So the entire ward under-spent a significant amount of budget money for at least two years. And now they have to figure out how to responsibly deal with the surpluses that are still sitting in the ward account.

So I would suggest we go back to the way it was pre-CUBS. What I mean is, look at how much was spent for the whole year previous (and maybe the one before that) and then (with input from leaders) estimate whether each auxiliary will need more or less than what their allocation was for the previous year. Make the adjustments and, bang! You're done. Don't confuse the auxiliary leaders with the notion that they need to break down their quarters a year in advance. After all, MLS will only record annual auxiliary allocations anyway! And I would advise anyone to avoid making a lot of custom spreadsheets if there's any way that you can track the same data within MLS.

mrrad wrote:Some things are just unnecessarily complicated. (I'm glad I'm not the one doing the marathon audits these days.)

I'm no accountant, although I did some financial management while in the military. I do not find things unnecessarily complicated in fact it quit simple compared to the way the government does their budgeting.

As for Audits what do you mean by marathon audits? I have reviewed the audit worksheet every six month before the audit and find it to be a simple straight forward audit. As long as the auditor follows the worksheet it should only take him a couple of hours to complete the whole audit.

Gary_Miller wrote:As for Audits what do you mean by marathon audits?

Oddly enough, I mean "a couple of hours."

Gary_Miller wrote: I'm no accountant, although I did some financial management while in the military. I do not find things unnecessarily complicated in fact it quit simple compared to the way the government does their budgeting.

It seems to me that you have experiences with budgets I don't have, so naturally it isn't as confusing to you as it is to me. I think that is my point.

"marathon audits:"

Accountant friendly audit: "Meet me at the church on Wednesday evening for two hours while I have your clerk pull out checks written two months ago to make sure that all the signatures and documentation are in order. And pull out several donation batches to see if the proper procedures are being followed. Meanwhile, you can pull out all your bishops store house orders for the last six months so we can compare the pink copy to the yellow copy and make certain they match."

Non accountant friendly audit: "I am coming to your clerks office after the block this Sunday and observing how the donation batches are being done and checking any checks written that day to see if the documentation is correct. And a reminder: You need to check the pink copy of bishop storehouse orders with the yellow copy when the come in so you can see any discrepancies or changes. You are a bishop. I trust you can do that."

mrrad wrote:Among the problems in late 2010 was the emphasis on quarterly budgeting vs. annual budgeting.

I'm not sure where you may have gotten the impression in late 2010 (or any other time, for that matter) that there was any emphasis on quarterly budgeting. I've just reviewed the communications sent out with the CUBS transition that took place then, and nothing talked about quarterly budgeting. Yes, budget allocations would arrive quarterly, but that had been happening for years before that.

For many, many years, the policy of the Church has been to do annual budgeting. That is in the current Handbook (HB 1, 14.7.1) and similar wording has been in at least the two previous handbooks.

mrrad wrote:I know one ward finance clerk who was so convinced of the importance of quarterly budgeting that he was tracking every single budget expense in a spreadsheet on his home computer.

That's a pity -- both because there has never been a need to do quarterly budgeting, and because there's no need to do external tracking of expenses.

mrrad wrote:So I would suggest we go back to the way it was pre-CUBS. What I mean is, look at how much was spent for the whole year previous (and maybe the one before that) and then (with input from leaders) estimate whether each auxiliary will need more or less than what their allocation was for the previous year. Make the adjustments and, bang! You're done.

I agree that we need to continue to do annual budgeting. I would not, however, recommend using baseline budgeting, which is what you seem to be advocating. That has never been the policy of the Church, as far as I know. The expenses incurred by an organization in the previous year is not relevant to the budget that will be needed for the next year. Instead, the focus should be on what budget funds are needed for the activities of the coming year. That may be dramatically higher or lower than the previous year, and there should be no expectation that an organization will maintain the previous year's funding level. See Budget allocation methods.

And again, nothing should have changed in this regard with the transition to CUBS.

mrrad wrote:Don't confuse the auxiliary leaders with the notion that they need to break down their quarters a year in advance. After all, MLS will only record annual auxiliary allocations anyway!

Indeed, MLS really only supports annual budgets for organizations.

mrrad wrote:And I would advise anyone to avoid making a lot of custom spreadsheets if there's any way that you can track the same data within MLS.

I agree. That's needless work and creates room for error; CUBS/MLS have the official record of finances.

aebrown wrote: I agree that we need to continue to do annual budgeting. I would not, however, recommend using baseline budgeting, which is what you seem to be advocating. That has never been the policy of the Church, as far as I know. The expenses incurred by an organization in the previous year is not relevant to the budget that will be needed for the next year. Instead, the focus should be on what budget funds are needed for the activities of the coming year. That may be dramatically higher or lower than the previous year, and there should be no expectation that an organization will maintain the previous year's funding level.

No disrespect, but that is an example of what I am talking about. There is policy and there is practicality. We are asking people who are not accountants to think like one. Many good people can not or will not do that.

aebrown wrote:I'm not sure where you may have gotten the impression in late 2010 (or any other time, for that matter) that there was any emphasis on quarterly budgeting. I've just reviewed the communications sent out with the CUBS transition that took place then, and nothing talked about quarterly budgeting. Yes, budget allocations would arrive quarterly, but that had been happening for years before that.

Obviously, my example was someone who was not a very experienced ward finance clerk who obviously misunderstood the communications sent out with the CUBS transition. The fact is, the instructions made it seem like switching to quarterly budget tracking was a big deal and, therefore, he passed that "big deal" on to the rest of the auxiliary leaders. But it really wasn't a big deal and it was only relevant to the financial clerk or (in case they really wanted to get into the nitty-gritty) members of the Bishopric. In the example I gave, this caused a lot of unnecessary complications.

(I can't speak for how it worked throughout the rest of the church, but I can observe what happened within my field of view... and this is one thing I was able to personally observe. It's easy to guess that, given the number of wards out there in the world, this wasn't the only ward that had a problem like this.)

aebrown wrote:I would not, however, recommend using baseline budgeting, which is what you seem to be advocating. That has never been the policy of the Church, as far as I know. The expenses incurred by an organization in the previous year is not relevant to the budget that will be needed for the next year.

In my experience, when you ask the auxiliary leader about planning for next year's budget, the first question they ask is "What was our budget before?" Then they're the ones who come up with ideas about whether they want more or less than that. Otherwise, are we really asking them to start with a blank page and figure out the next year's budget?

mrrad wrote:In my experience, when you ask the auxiliary leader about planning for next year's budget, the first question they ask is "What was our budget before?" Then they're the ones who come up with ideas about whether they want more or less than that. Otherwise, are we really asking them to start with a blank page and figure out the next year's budget?

I get asked that question, too, but I firmly believe that it is the wrong question to ask. Now it's not necessary to "start with a blank page"; we can and should learn from what we've done in the past. For example, if we've done a roller skating activity in the past, and we know that it cost $150, and you're doing that same activity next year, then by all means, use that information to help guide your request for that portion of the coming year's budget.

But unless you are repeating the exact same activities in the coming year as you did in the last year, the chances are slim that you will have the exact same budget needs as in the previous year. When an organization simply asks for the same budget they had last year, that's generally an indication that they are doing little if any planning of what the actual events are going to cost next year.

According to the Local Unit Budget Instructions, we are to "Ask organizations to estimate their budget needs in detail." Note that key phrase "in detail" -- they don't just give a number. And the only mention of the previous year is in the instruction to "Review the amounts spent during the previous year to make sure recurring expenses are considered"; this wise counsel, but applies only to recurring expenses.

P.S. The question about "what was my budget last year" is also a rather scary question; that could only be asked by someone who is new to the calling (in which case it's fine) or by someone who was not aware of and managing expenses to the budget throughout the year (which means they are neglecting an important responsibility).

I'm not saying that the question "What was my budget before?" is a great question but it is usually the first one I get. My answer is to give them a detailed budget report to remind them exactly what they did. This can help them to plan whether to try the same things the next time. No need to scold them about neglecting their duties. After all, I'm supposed to be there to help them and if I'm the keeper of the official financial record, then... maybe it was a good question to ask me. [/pretending to still be finance clerk]

TinMan wrote:No disrespect, but that is an example of what I am talking about. There is policy and there is practicality. We are asking people who are not accountants to think like one. Many good people can not or will not do that.

I don't think its asking anyone to think like an accountant. Instead its asking the leaders to think about what activities they are going to do and what the estimated expenses will be.

mrrad wrote:I'm not saying that the question "What was my budget before?" is a great question but it is usually the first one I get. My answer is to give them a detailed budget report to remind them exactly what they did. This can help them to plan whether to try the same things the next time. No need to scold them about neglecting their duties. After all, I'm supposed to be there to help them and if I'm the keeper of the official financial record, then... maybe it was a good question to ask me. [/pretending to still be finance clerk]

I certainly would never scold anyone about neglecting their duties, and I'm happy to give anyone a detailed budget report to remind them of the expenses for the year. After all, as I quoted above, planning for recurring expenses is an important part of the process.

It's a great question to ask for a detailed budget report; if that's what people mean when they ask "what was my budget last year," then that's great. If, on the other hand, they mean "what was my allocated budget amount for my organization last year," then that is a concern, since they should know that number very well, since they should be managing their expenses to fit within the approved budget. This is an indication that there is a breakdown in the process somewhere, and it's an opportunity for training and improvement. That breakdown could be in any number of places (clerks, leaders, secretaries, etc.). A financial clerk should be a helpful resource in helping those who spend Church funds to know how they are doing throughout the year, so it should never be a mystery what the budget number is and what the YTD expenses are.

Well, there's always that guy who didn't submit receipts (maybe because of neglect or maybe because he wanted to be nice and "donate" the treats for those activities) or the guy who did submit a monster receipt after driving his biggest gas hog vehicle to scout camp. Even a careful Young Men president gets a few surprises that make it to the finance clerk's inbox and become expenses while the Young Men president wasn't looking.

TinMan wrote: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.

Since they changed the allocations from yearly to quarterly, the way I look at the budget hasn't really changed for me. I still look at the budget as a yearly thing. When we set our budgets each year (yes just once per year) we estimate how much we'll get each quarter based on our most recent sacrament meeting attendance (since that is how most of the allocation is calculated). Then I plug those numbers in to the budget and ta-da, we have our annual budget! As the year rolls on, yes the actual amounts will be a little different then our estimated amounts, but we estimate on the conservative side so it's never a huge difference.

After we have estimated the annual budget the bishop has a budget meeting with the auxiliary leadership to determine how much they will need. The sum total we assign to each organization/budget categories never exceeds our estimated yearly budget. Sometimes in the middle of the year we may move funds from one organization to another if one isn't spending as much, or another has more expenses then they planned. The budget is like a living, fluid thing. The great thing about MLS is that it's easy to adjust the budget any time it's necessary.

jasonfitt wrote: Sometimes in the middle of the year we may move funds from one organization to another if one isn't spending as much, or another has more expenses then they planned. The budget is like a living, fluid thing. The great thing about MLS is that it's easy to adjust the budget any time it's necessary.

The problem with that is that some organizations save their budget and have more expenses at the end of the year. Some organizations want to save their money and carry it over to next year so they can have a bigger activity next year. At least that is the way it is in my ward.

And contrary to what has been said we SHOULD do, most of the organizations DO do the same activities from year to year. With minor variations. So using last years budget as a base line is quick and easy. At least for non-accountant types.

TinMan wrote:

jasonfitt wrote: Sometimes in the middle of the year we may move funds from one organization to another if one isn't spending as much, or another has more expenses then they planned. The budget is like a living, fluid thing. The great thing about MLS is that it's easy to adjust the budget any time it's necessary.

The problem with that is that some organizations save their budget and have more expenses at the end of the year. Some organizations want to save their money and carry it over to next year so they can have a bigger activity next year. At least that is the way it is in my ward.

And contrary to what has been said we SHOULD do, most of the organizations DO do the same activities from year to year. With minor variations. So using last years budget as a base line is quick and easy. At least for non-accountant types.

Actually there nothing wrong with that , and to clarify at the end of the year all the left over in each budget is added up in to a lump sum and carried over on to the next year. Each auxiliary budget is automatically zeroed out, so you have to manually go back and enter amounts for the new year. MLS does not carry the excess over and puts it back in each auxiliary budgets. And obviously we wouldn't take money out of a budget if they're still going to need those funds. Any changes, of course, are discussed with the auxiliary presidents first to make sure they have enough and are approved by the bishop. We just want to make sure everybody has what they need and we don't go over budget.

TinMan wrote:And contrary to what has been said we SHOULD do, most of the organizations DO do the same activities from year to year.

I can't find any place where anyone said that organizations should not do the same activities from year to year.

TinMan wrote:So using last years budget as a base line is quick and easy. At least for non-accountant types.

The instructions (which have been quoted multiple times) say that you should consider recurring expenses. And if all the activities are the same, then everything is a recurring expense. If everything is a recurring expense, then last year's budget is a great proposal for next year.

I personally have found it to be quite rare for an organization to repeat the same activities year to year (particularly if the youth are taking an active role in planning them), but if that happens to occur, then I would agree with you on this procedure.

TinMan wrote:Some organizations want to save their money and carry it over to next year so they can have a bigger activity next year.

We don't do carry overs to the next year. At the end of the year I zero out the total budget by making adjustments to YM/YW camp fees collected from individuals and from fund risers. If possible we return money for camp back to the individuals. Budget money is there to be used for activities during the year.

TinMan wrote:And contrary to what has been said we SHOULD do, most of the organizations DO do the same activities from year to year. With minor variations. So using last years budget as a base line is quick and easy. At least for non-accountant types.

In my ward the new budget is calculated based on the percent of funds used from the year before. After estimating the expected income we divide the funds up base on the percentage the organization used the year before.

While I have no problem with base line budgeting. I prefer activity based budgeting because it causes organization to develop a yearly activity plan which also helps with calendaring of activities.

Gary_Miller wrote: We don't do carry overs to the next year. At the end of the year I zero out the total budget by making adjustments to YM/YW camp fees collected from individuals and from fund risers. If possible we return money for camp back to the individuals. Budget money is there to be used for activities during the year.

Perhaps your ward is more affluent than mine. For example, organized scout camps are way expensive. So we only do them every other year, and on the off year we do a "wilderness" (on our own) camp that we can do much less expensively. The scouts carry over the money saved on wilderness camps and use some of it for the organized camps next year. That way, our organized camp fees are (mostly) spread over two years.

Gary-Miller wrote: In my ward the new budget is calculated based on the percent of funds used from the year before. After estimating the expected income we divide the funds up base on the percentage the organization used the year before.

While I have no problem with base line budgeting. I prefer activity based budgeting because it causes organization to develop a yearly activity plan which also helps with calendaring of activities.

So, it is okay for the ward to use last years budget as a baseline for allotment, but not okay for the auxiliaries to use last years budget for their baseline of planned expenditures? Or am I confused?

Likely the later...

As a tangential note: We rotate our quorum/class presidents every six months or so. Therefoe, we ask our YM/YW to only plan the first six months at the first of the year. We want to give the new quorum and class presidencies a chance to plan the activities for the last half of the year. I feel it gives them a little more feeling of ownership.

TinMan wrote:Perhaps your ward is more affluent than mine.

I seriously doubt that. We have to ask for individual participation as well as do fund raisers for our camps.

TinMan wrote: For example, organized scout camps are way expensive. So we only do them every other year, and on the off year we do a "wilderness" (on our own) camp that we can do much less expensively. The scouts carry over the money saved on wilderness camps and use some of it for the organized camps next year. That way, our organized camp fees are (mostly) spread over two years.

This sounds good as long as there is no additional funds being provided by individual participants and/or fund risers the off year when you do the "wilderness" camp. If there is then you would not be within budget guidelines, in my view.

TinMan wrote:So, it is okay for the ward to use last years budget as a baseline for allotment, but not okay for the auxiliaries to use last years budget for their baseline of planned expenditures?

No auxiliaries can also use baseline budgeting as well. However, I feel you get better activity planning if the auxiliaries were to estimate expenses for each activity instead of just using what they spent last year.

TinMan wrote:Or am I confused?

It can get confusing.

TinMan wrote:As a tangential note: We rotate our quorum/class presidents every six months or so. Therefoe, we ask our YM/YW to only plan the first six months at the first of the year. We want to give the new quorum and class presidencies a chance to plan the activities for the last half of the year. I feel it gives them a little more feeling of ownership.

So do you do this with your HP Group, Elders Quorum, Primary and Relief Society as well?

Oh no. I am so sorry I confused you. The HP Group leaders, Elders Quorum Presidency and Relief Society Presidency all stay in their callings for about 3 years. It is only the Deacons, Teachers and Priest Quorum presidencies that rotate every six months (Less the Priest Quorum President, or bishop, of course.) And the Beehive, MiaMaid and Laurels class presidencies that rotate about every six months.

If the group of young men and young women that are in their callings in January plan all the activities for the year, the group that comes in six months later has nothing to plan.

And since the YM and YW have the largest budgets by far of any of our organizations, (especially when compared to the Elders and HP group's budgets), that means the budgets for class activities cannot be planned completely until summer.

Does that make sense?

TinMan wrote:Does that make sense?

Not at all.

TinMan wrote:Oh no. I am so sorry I confused you. The HP Group leaders, Elders Quorum Presidency and Relief Society Presidency all stay in their callings for about 3 years.

You did not confuse me I knew you where only talking about the YM/YW programs I was just trying to make a point.

TinMan wrote: It is only the Deacons, Teachers and Priest Quorum presidencies that rotate every six months (Less the Priest Quorum President, or bishop, of course.) And the Beehive, MiaMaid and Laurels class presidencies that rotate about every six months.

I have seen and heard lots of Bishops do this with the thought that allows for more youth to gain experience in leadership positions. However, I have always thought it was an odd thing to do, for three reasons. First if you truly believe the Lord called that youth to that position why would you remove them from the position for any reason than the lord said it was time or the youth aged out of the class. Second, in six months a person in a leadership position is just now starting to figure out what they are doing and what they feel they need to do to help those who they have stewardship over. Third, the longer a youth is in the leadership position the more effective they will be in helping those in need among their group.

If you would not do this to the EQ, HP, RS, SS, Primary, why would you do it to the youth programs?

TinMan wrote:If the group of young men and young women that are in their callings in January plan all the activities for the year, the group that comes in six months later has nothing to plan.

And since the YM and YW have the largest budgets by far of any of our organizations, (especially when compared to the Elders and HP group's budgets), that means the budgets for class activities cannot be planned completely until summer.

If the groups built their activities around the interests, and with input from of quorum and class members then the activities are set. Then they all know the plan, the budget is set the based on an estimate, the activity is calendar. The only thing left to do is work out the details as the activity gets closer. It should not matter who is in the leadership position at that time as the members of the quorum/class all had input on what activities they wanted to do.

Time out. I don't think TinMan intends to do anything wrong nor has he done anything wrong. So I think the tone of this discussion is getting too harsh. I see that all of TinMan's points are based on practical situations and trying to understand when what's practical seems to conflict with what "should" happen on paper.

The budgets and the activities for High Priests and for any youth auxiliary are apples-and-oranges compared to each other. Even the Relief Society (which has a budget closer to the youth budget in my experience, compared to the very small amount needed by the High Priests) is based on activities and needs which are very different from the concerns of any youth organization. So I cry "foul" on trying to sustain this discussion with some kind of one-size-fits-all approach.

TinMan said that quorum and class presidents are replaced "every six months or so" (emphasis added by me). It doesn't sound like a hard-and-fast rule he has imposed. There are practical reasons. First (and most common), those youth leaders get older and move on to the next class or quorum anyway. Second, if you have one youth who is an outgoing, naturally-gifted leader, it's tempting to just let him be the president for a long, long time but it limits the experiences of people who could grow more with the same calling. So it's entirely unfair to compare that "turnover" to the frequency of callings and releases with adult leaders. And, since I'm not the Bishop of TinMan's ward, I wouldn't presume to tell him when to keep or release people.

Suppose the Deacon's Quorum President is extremely interested in, say, Martial Arts and he plans a year's worth of activities which include a lot of Martial Arts stuff. But then, four months into the year, he's moved on and none of the other Deacons are very interested in his activities. They might have been more enthusiastic when he was their president and his enthusiasm was infectious. But, now that he's gone, should they be locked in?

Again, I see this whole topic to be about balancing the textbook instructions (which sometimes say "should" instead of "must") with what's really happening on the ground. TinMan's being practical while seeking a better understanding of whatever is a firm policy. I see a lot of good in being practical.

I think the point is that the youth, ideally, anyway, should already be planning a twelve months ahead. The more detailed planning, again done by the youth themselves, takes place as the activities draw nearer. There is no reason for a new presidency to ever have a blank slate.

As for what happens when the youth aren't interested in a particular activity, that's easy. People who don't include the participants' interests and needs in the planning discussions quickly find out that they have no participants.

TinMan wrote:If the group of young men and young women that are in their callings in January plan all the activities for the year, the group that comes in six months later has nothing to plan.

One problem I have with that is if the first group figures out they'll be released in 6 months, they may decide to "burn the budget" and leave nothing for the second group. The first presidency will be popular. The second, not so much.

Regardless, you have to plan a budget on year basis.

Not if you only give them half of your estimated allotment to work with.

mrrad wrote: I see a lot of good in being practical.

Thank you.

Gary_Miller wrote: I have seen and heard lots of Bishops do this with the thought that allows for more youth to gain experience in leadership positions. However, I have always thought it was an odd thing to do, for three reasons. First if you truly believe the Lord called that youth to that position why would you remove them from the position for any reason than the lord said it was time or the youth aged out of the class. Second, in six months a person in a leadership position is just now starting to figure out what they are doing and what they feel they need to do to help those who they have stewardship over. Third, the longer a youth is in the leadership position the more effective they will be in helping those in need among their group.

While those are valid points, I believe a fourth purpose of youth quorum and class presidencies is to train leaders. If the same few youth are always the class president because they are "more effective," then the other youth never get the chance to learn to be "more effective." Yes. Some are "born leaders." Many are not. We try very, very hard to give every youth a chance to be president at some time in their Young Men and Young Women experience. They learn how to conduct a presidency meeting, preside at quorum/class meetings, ask people to do assignments, and so on. Most people learn by doing better than they learn by watching.

Gary_Miller wrote: If you would not do this to the EQ, HP, RS, SS, Primary, why would you do it to the youth programs?

Because I am trying to train future EQ, HP, RS, SS and Primary presidents. I think that is part of my responsibility. And what better place to do that than a place where they have "shadow leaders?" (Boy am I old...)

Another point of view on the annual v. quarterly issue (not advocating it, but it resolves a bunch of issues):

At the stake level, I project the total amount of budget allocation that will be coming to our units in the following year. After taking a haircut to fund stake auxiliaries and youth camps, the stake presidency divides the remainder among the wards as they see fit (based principally on their membership/attendance, plus a few subjective factors). Each bishop is given a letter with his annual budget allocation. This is exactly what they will get; no more no less. This frees up the ward leaders from having to do projection work and deal with fluctuations. Zero complaints; zero confusion.

Mechanically, I set each unit's budget allocation percentages to zero and then send them a couple checks during the year that equal their promised budget funds. We keep enough budget funds on hand to absorb fluctuations.