Transfer funds from Fast Offering to Other

I am thinking the "How to deal with incorrect postings" section of the Other Category FAQ may address my issue too, but wanted to have this confirmed or corrected.

I have the need to allocate fast offering funds to a subcategory in the Other category.

Is this done by writting a paper check and via a donation slip? This is a manual process and a bit of a work around to a simple transfer (if that is an option), hence the reason I ask the question.

rgifford wrote:I have the need to allocate fast offering funds to a subcategory in the Other category.

This begs the question: Should the donation have been made to a subcategory of "other" in the first place? If so, the donation would not be considered "charitable" by MLS when printing the donor's statement. But a Fast Offering donation would be charitable and tax-deductable. I believe that transfering a Fast Offering dollar amount into an "other" subcategory would be considered a way of subverting MLS when it comes to the non-charitable status.

In short, I see a major red flag. I believe it would be more proper to correct the original donation(s) and enter them under the subcategory of "other" instead of as Fast Offerings. If you can't write a Fast Offering check directly to pay for the expense then something's wrong.

rgifford wrote:I have the need to allocate fast offering funds to a subcategory in the Other category.

Another possible fix to the root cause might be to change a check written incorrectly from Other to be from Fast Offerings.

rgifford wrote: I have the need to allocate fast offering funds to a subcategory in the Other category.

Alan_Brown wrote:Another possible fix to the root cause might be to change a check written incorrectly from Other to be from Fast Offerings.

This may be an understanding of the policies and not one of trying to correct an issue.

As a new stake clerk, I had a ward clerk as the same question. He was trying to zero out one of his Other - sub-accounts (girls camp or scout camp, I don't recall). He indicated that a couple of families that were being assisted with fast offering funds had youth that attended camp. Since the family really could not afford to pay for their youths portion of the camp expense, the bishop requested the clerk to clear the deficit in the Other account with fast offering funds.

I know that the training video and other documentation says to transfer (write a check) funds from a budget category to bring the subcategory to zero but the bishop feels that since fast offering funds are being used to support the family in other areas, that the use of fast offering funds to pay for camp is appropriate in this instance.

Is there any place in the CHI or training materials where it specifically states that this use of fast offering funds is inappropriate?

RWoodmansee wrote:As a new stake clerk, I had a ward clerk as the same question. He was trying to zero out one of his Other - sub-accounts (girls camp or scout camp, I don't recall). He indicated that a couple of families that were being assisted with fast offering funds had youth that attended camp. Since the family really could not afford to pay for their youths portion of the camp expense, the bishop requested the clerk to clear the deficit in the Other account with fast offering funds.
...
Is there any place in the CHI or training materials where it specifically states that this use of fast offering funds is inappropriate?

This sounds like a misunderstanding of the appropriate use of the Other category. From the training lesson Understanding and Using the "Other" Category, on slide 18:

In cases where budget funds are not sufficient to pay for annual youth camps or similar activities, leaders may ask participants to contribute by earning their own money. The “Other” category may be used in these exceptional circumstances.
All funds collected for special purposes should be tracked in the “Other” category.

If I understand you correctly, you flipped this policy upside down and paid for the camp out of Other funds and then decided how to collect the money. That is not correct. You pay for the camp out of Budget funds, except that there is an exception for an annual camp where all or part of the camp may be paid for out of money earned by the the participants. Such moneys are tracked using a specific subcategory of the Other category, but the Other category retains its use as a pass-through account: funds collected into the Other category for a specific purpose are then paid out for that specific purpose.

There is no provision for paying for camps using any other source of funds, and it is quite clear that money that goes into the Other category for the exceptional case of paying for one annual camp comes from the participants earning the money, or from a fundraiser. That money collected for that specific purpose in the Other category is then spent for that specific purpose.

RWoodmansee wrote:As a new stake clerk, [...]

but the bishop feels that since fast offering funds are being used to support the family in other areas, that the use of fast offering funds to pay for camp is appropriate in this instance.

Is there any place in the CHI or training materials where it specifically states that this use of fast offering funds is inappropriate?

To answer your specific question, you may wish to talk to the Stake President about the issue.

Alan_Brown wrote:If I understand you correctly, you flipped this policy upside down and paid for the camp out of Other funds and then decided how to collect the money.

Let me clarify. Example, the total cost of scout camp is $150. The ward allocated $180 in the budget for each boy to attend and asked the families to work with the boys to make up the $70 difference. The bishop with the stake president authorized a fund raiser that cut the $70 down to $30 but there were a couple of familes (that were receiving assitance from fast offerings) that could not (did not) contribute their $30.

We like to use the Other subcategories so all expenses and donations are in once place. So when the check was cut to pay for scout camp the total amount was charged to the Other Scout subcategory. All donations from fund raisers and from each family are put into the Other scout subcategory. The clerk like wise cut a check from budget for the $80/boy and deposited it into the Other Scout subcategory. Now that camp is over and the dust has settled, the Other subcategory still has a deficit of $60 for the two boys who's family did not contribute their $30.

The bishop suggested that since the families were receiving fast offering assistance that they cut a check using fast offering funds to cover the deficit.

I will be talking to the stake president and am looking for sources to support the stand that using fast offerings is inappropriate. I have the CHI where it says that fast offerings are to be used to suppport the necessities (I don't consider that scout camp is a necessity). I also have the quotes from the Understanding the "Other" Account training video were it uses camps as the example and that budget funds should be used to cover deficits in the Other subcategories.

I was looking to see if there was any additional support that might explicitly state that using fast offering funds to pay for camps is inapporpriate.

RWoodmansee wrote:Let me clarify. Example, the total cost of scout camp is $150. The ward allocated $180 in the budget for each boy to attend and asked the families to work with the boys to make up the $70 difference. The bishop with the stake president authorized a fund raiser that cut the $70 down to $30 but there were a couple of familes (that were receiving assistance from fast offerings) that could not (did not) contribute their $30.

I think you meant $80, not $180.

We're probably getting too much into a discussion of the policies. The bottom line is that you'll need to bring the relevant policies to the priesthood leaders, who will make the decision.

But I'll mention two points that have not yet been mentioned that you may find helpful in your discussion with the leaders (these are on pages 160-161 in CHI Book 1 [2006]):

• The funds from the boys are clearly funds that the boys earn. They are not contributed by the family. So the ability of the family to pay seems like a non-issue -- the only relevant point is what the boys are able to earn.
• The only policy reference to fundraising is "group fundraising". That would seem to indicate that those funds are raised and allocated as a group, not to individuals.

Alan - Thanks for the additional suport. I think you hit a great point that the boys should earn their way. Too many parents don't hold the boys responsible and just make the donation for them.

I think I have enough to support the fact that the deficit should be covered by the wards budget. Thanks again.