Which party should pay for Copier Repairing Cost

In the Meetinghouse Technology Section, under the Copier Overview where it said " The facilities management group is responsible for purchasing, repairing, and disposal of copiers." Does it mean FM group only responsible for getting 3rd party provider to fix the issue and they are not actually paying for any repairing cost. The reason I asked, because we were asked to share 1/3 of the repairing cost to a copier which was for replacing a "Control panel" of a copier. We were not aware of such a cost and were not budgeted for such expense.

That sure seems odd to me. Did it break or was it abused?

Not sure, it was a old HP 5354 printer belongs to our stake. The strange thing is they replaced the Control panel at a cost of almost $ 500 dollars in January, bought a new toner for $ 150 and then one week later bought another spare at $ 150. Then the copier was broken again a few months later and it was replace by a new copier from Xerox. All money wasted. Should all the those cost be reviewed or get approved by our FM group before hand if they know they already have budget for a new one. And those money have to pay by our ward budget and was toasted.

Toner is the responsibility of the ward. Since it was replaced when it broke, that wasn't a failure of communication. You can see if you can return or somehow sell off the unopened toner cartridge.

But the issue is the control panel. I would think that would be FM's responsibility unless there's something else at play here. Was this a printer the stake bought on it's own and not though FM?

Yes, the stake bought on its own and FM group may not aware of it and we were asked to pay our share after 10 months. Just want to make sure who should be responsible for this before we could go ahead and inform our Stake.Thanks.

joecondanmic wrote:Yes, the stake bought on its own

FM can't be expected to pay for things that the stake decides to do on it's own. You might want to take up the issue with the stake. They're the ones that made the decision.

Thanks, talked to FM group and they will talk to the stake personnel.

This is the kind of thing that is SO very frustrating about a leader deciding to bypass the policies that are out there. In my experience this is USUALLY an ignorance issue, (FMG's do their best to keep that ignorance as well among wards/stakes).

Multiply this situation by hundreds of units that likely have done that and it becomes a very big number. The FMG at SLC believes they are serving ALL the needs of stakes and wards with XXXX dollars, but really there is a LARGE amount of LUBA funds being used. The FMG loses that money EVERY time we make those decisions, thinking they don't need it or that they are covering 100%.

Each and Every time a ward/stake makes a purchase like this that is an FM responsibility we perpetuate a problem!

I remember the last time we got a new Facility Manager several years ago. He made the rounds to ensure all stake presidents, bishops, and PFRs knew the rules. He reviewed the physical facilities manual with each of them, so everyone understood how things worked.

Nevertheless, our stake and wards purchased items that should have been purchased through the FM. In some cases, our leaders had forgotten the proper procedures, or the leaders had been replaced, and their replacements were not trained. Just a couple years ago, one of our bishops bought a 40-inch TV on December 31st because he thought he had "use or lose" money in his budget, so he violated mutiple guidelines. We all still tease him about that, but he's happy that his ward has a 40-inch TV while the rest of us who obeyed the rules got 32-inch TVs.

The FM can't be everywhere. Our stake PFR is supposed to be his main contact with our stake and ward leaders. In my experience, the PFR assignment is usually kicked around the high council like a soccer ball, which greatly hurts the communication and training processes.

Stakes and wards should be willing to maintain everything they buy without FM approval.