YSA Wards/Branches and the Activities Committee

[font=&quot]I've been hesitant to post this because I fear for what may happen in a thread like this. I have two ground rules for any that reply:

This is not a discussion of the wisdom of the church policy as stated by Elder Cook and contained in the new handbooks. If the thread heads in that direction I expect the moderators to delete it.

I'm hoping for some honest and useful input. Criticism and condemnation of a particular unit/individual's thoughts is not useful. If a suggestion runs counter to policy, we can rely on our own personal revelation to tell us that. Again, if attacks start to happen I expect the moderators to delete the thread.

So ...

I can see that the policy will be easy to apply in a unit that only has a few activities per year. Working through the Ward Council and assigning auxiliaries and individuals to plan those would be relatively painless and indeed could bring much needed focus on the things that are most important in unit cohesion and the main missions of the Church.

At my YSA branch, our President has been out of town so the discussion hasn't really started other than to look at each other with that deer-in-the-headlights expression. My approach is to prayerfully read and re-read the training and the handbooks, look for information, and seek the spirit to suggest how we might proceed. Our Stake President's only comment was "I'm sure you guys will figure that out". He has a lot of faith in us.

My interest is in how those of you who serve in activity-heavy units, particularly YSAs, are approaching this; what has come up in your discussions; and what kinds of options are you considering?[/font]

idjeeper wrote:[font=&quot]

This is not a discussion of the wisdom of the church policy as stated by Elder Cook and contained in the new handbooks...

I'm hoping for some honest and useful input....

My interest is in how those of you who serve in activity-heavy units, particularly YSAs, are approaching this; what has come up in your discussions; and what kinds of options are you considering?[/font]

Yes, we won't discuss the CHI or church policy!
But, could it be seen as simply moving the point of delegation to free the bishopric to minister rather than administer?

In other words, the old activities committee reported to the bishopric, thus taking bishopric time and oversight, and a chair at council. Does ward council time need to be devoted to discussing who will set up tables?

By moving this oversight responsibility to a quorum or organization, it "frees" the bishopric. The point of delegation moves to the head of said organization, who has been given keys and authority, and may then delegate further to a committee or person. The presidency meeting and committee meetings could become the planning and delegation point, (who will set up the tables?) with a return and report to the bishopric by the organization head at council.

Does this simply mean asking an organization in your ward to appoint one or several activities committees? That is a good start of your discussion!

idjeeper wrote:[font=&quot]

This is not a discussion of the wisdom of the church policy as stated by Elder Cook and contained in the new handbooks...

I'm hoping for some honest and useful input....

My interest is in how those of you who serve in activity-heavy units, particularly YSAs, are approaching this; what has come up in your discussions; and what kinds of options are you considering?[/font]

Yes, we won't discuss the CHI or church policy!
But, could it be seen as simply moving the point of delegation to free the bishopric to minister rather than administer?

In other words, the old activities committee reported to the bishopric, thus taking bishopric time and oversight, and a chair at council. Does ward council time need to be devoted to discussing who will set up tables?

By moving this oversight responsibility to a quorum or organization, it "frees" the bishopric. The point of delegation moves to the head of said organization, who has been given keys and authority, and may then delegate further to a committee or person. The presidency meeting and committee meetings could become the planning and delegation point, (who will set up the tables?) with a return and report to the bishopric by the organization head at council.

Does this simply mean asking an organization in your ward to appoint one or several activities committees? That is a good start of your discussion!

Take a look at section 16.3.4 and 16.3.5. I would think that a YSA branch would qualify as a ward (branch) with a significant number of young single adults. The YSA Committee could be a perfect place for a point of delegation for activities.

Unfortunately, I neither have access to Handbook 1, or had much time to read Handbook 2, but the first question I have is are activity committees prohibited or simply no longer what I call "minimum requirements" for a ward? If it's only the latter, then I'd say it's the leader's prerogative as to how or if he wants to organize a committee.

But I have to say that the first thought that crossed my mind was not that there would be fewer activities, but only that there would no longer be a ongoing activities committee. In other words, an ad hoc committee would be created for each event. No one person would have to be burned with the organization each time (but I do suspect it would tend to fall to the same group). All in all, I kind of expected the outcome to be the same as it is now, it's just that no one would have the calling to plan events.

I have read the section for Single Members, and it's quite clear that they will be planning events. So it's not like there will never be another committee to plan an event.

It could just be as simple as the Brethren don't want planning activities to be the only calling a member has. Perhaps they want members to serve in other capacities on a normal basis, and just help out with activity planning as-needed (or rotate through to other people, so no one person does it full-time). Perhaps when all you do is full-time plan activities, you're missing opportunities to take part in the activities as a participant, and maybe more importantly invite and fellowship others who normally wouldn't come to such activities.

Just a few highly speculative thoughts, and that shows how much they are worth too (not much). I do agree with other comments that I don't necessarily think that activities themselves are the target of the new policy.

mkmurray wrote:Perhaps when all you do is full-time plan activities, you're missing opportunities to take part in the activities as a participant, and maybe more importantly invite and fellowship others who normally wouldn't come to such activities.

As someone who normally helps plan/setup/run the tech stuff for most activities, I can certainly agree with that as a possible reason for this change.

It is nice to go to an activity and be able to enjoy it (rather than having to ride herd on some critical thing for the whole time). My wife also appreciates it when we can both go and spend time together at such activities.

Aaron Z

I know of at least 4 stake conference type meetings being held this Sunday by General Authorities in the Salt Lake area this weekend (Lehi, Sandy, Salt Lake and University of Utah campus housing). Supposedly the main topic will be along the lines of your question - how to implement the changes addressed in the World Wide Leadership Training meeting. I imagine most of the focus will be on PEC and Ward Council, but at least one of these meetings is in a Singles Stake. Hopefully these types of meetings continue outside the Salt Lake area or, at the least, members in those areas come here and post some of the discussion items.

mkmurray wrote:It could just be as simple as the Brethren don't want planning activities to be the only calling a member has.

On the flip side, perhaps they don't want someone to feel that the only way to magnify their calling is to hold more and/or grander activities.

This broadcast isn't the first time I've heard the brethren warn against church activities interfering with family. Having members whose calling is to do activities would tend to work against that directive.

From the newsroom announcement of the new handbook:

"Church leaders have emphasized that while the handbook is an essential guide in a large church with a lay ministry, it is not scripture, and individual leaders are expected to seek inspiration and use judgment when administering their church duties."

It seems to me that might apply here?

RussellHltn wrote:Unfortunately, I neither have access to Handbook 1, or had much time to read Handbook 2, but the first question I have is are activity committees prohibited or simply no longer what I call "minimum requirements" for a ward? If it's only the latter, then I'd say it's the leader's prerogative as to how or if he wants to organize a committee.

Elder Cook made it quite clear that standing ward activity committees will no longer exist. In his message he stated (emphasis added):

This chapter provides a new approach for planning and implementing activities. There is no longer a permanent activities committee at the ward level. Section 13.2.1, in the middle of the second paragraph, reads: “When an activity is for the entire ward, the bishop may assign responsibility for it to one or more organizations represented on the ward council. He may also assign responsibility … to other individuals or to a committee.” Normally these assignments are for a specific activity or event only.

It's interesting to note that although the stake council is similarly in charge of activities at the stake level (see 13.2.1), the stake president may organize a standing Stake Activities Committee (see 13.3.2).

RussellHltn wrote:But I have to say that the first thought that crossed my mind was not that there would be fewer activities, but only that there would no longer be a ongoing activities committee. In other words, an ad hoc committee would be created for each event. No one person would have to be burned with the organization each time (but I do suspect it would tend to fall to the same group). All in all, I kind of expected the outcome to be the same as it is now, it's just that no one would have the calling to plan events.

There is nothing that says there would be fewer activities. In fact, so many possibilities are mentioned (especially in 13.2.6 -- Balance and Variety) that it's clear there should be plenty of activities to strengthen members in a variety of ways. There is a warning that "Leaders also ensure that activities do not become so numerous that they put undue burdens on members" (see 13.2.2), but that has always been a foundational principle in this area.

Although an ad hoc committee may be formed, the first preference is for an organization or group of organizations to plan an activity. Following the new guidelines, for example, the bishop could certainly ask the Elders Quorum to organize the Fathers and Sons Campout; the Relief Society and Young Women could work together on a Humanitarian Aid project; etc. Such activities could simply be planned by the existing quorum and auxiliary presidencies with no special committee. But for something like a ward Christmas party, a bishop may choose to have an ad hoc committee take charge. There's tremendous flexibility available within these basic principles as the bishop is inspired to direct as he counsels with the ward council.

Thank you for your input thus far. Your thoughts follow some of the ideas I have had with some additional insights into how activities committees have operated in the past and some points in the guidelines that hadn't struck me yet. I think this will be valuable in our discussions.

As pointed out by several of you, one of my concerns from when I was first called into the branch, has been that the activities sometimes seem to lack balance and focus, take an inordinate amount of planning and preparation, and sometimes cost a lot of money. As a presidency, we have to be careful in our council to the Chairperson to convey what we need without making it seem that they are failing in their calling - and they really aren't. I believe that no matter what course we end up taking with respect to the activities committee, following the guidelines for activities will bring us blessings and enhance the branch as a whole.

I don't usually like to parse words, but one of Elder Cook's comments stands out "Normally these assignments are for a specific activity or event only". I almost feel like I'm looking for an "out" but does that hit anyone else? Are the YSAs normal? (As an aside, we have a number of members with disabilities and often get referred to, usually not in a mean-spirited way, as the Special Needs Branch, so maybe we really aren't normal. )

Again I thank you. Hopefully this discussion hasn't run it's course quite yet.

TinMan wrote:From the newsroom announcement of the new handbook:

"Church leaders have emphasized that while the handbook is an essential guide in a large church with a lay ministry, it is not scripture, and individual leaders are expected to seek inspiration and use judgment when administering their church duties."

It seems to me that might apply here?

Possibly. I'd like to share some quotes from the Leadership Training presentation that accompanied the passing out of these materials. They are instructive in regard to when making exceptions is appropriate. My only purpose in sharing these quotes is to point out that exceptions can be made to a limited number of policies and programs at the local level when guided by the Spirit by special circumstances, and after having read and understand all the existing policies and underlying principles first. I'm not saying anyone here is in danger of violating this council, but I think it is important to keep these words in mind as decisions about exceptions to the Handbook are being decided.

Elder Dallin H.Oaks

While handbooks do not have the same standing as the scriptures, they do represent the most current interpretations and procedural directions of the Church’s highest authorities...We know that these handbooks and their directions, as President Monson has said and as is stated in their introductions, “can facilitate revelation if they are used to provide an understanding of principles, policies, and procedures to apply while seeking the guidance of the Spirit” (Handbook 1: Stake Presidents and Bishops [2010], v; Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], v).

...

In contrast to the doctrinally uniform and permanent principles stated in the first three short chapters, most of book 2 consists of inspired programs and policies that can be changed in the future by appropriate authority. For most of the handbook, including its stated policies and principles, the only authority authorized to make changes is the First Presidency. We need to remember that policy directions are approved and announced only by the First Presidency. They are not introduced through rumor from one leader or member to another. Further, if you have questions, you should discuss them with your presiding priesthood leader. Only the most senior priesthood leaders should be checking with the Office of the First Presidency. As an exception, as Elder Cook will explain in a moment, a limited number of programs can be modified by local authorities where needed by local conditions or where necessary to serve the members.

President Thomas S. Monson

The point, however, is that in almost all cases, if the leaders would only read, understand, and follow the handbook, such problems would not occur. Whether you’ve been a lifelong member of the Church or are a relatively new member, consult the handbook when you are uncertain about a policy or procedure. You may think you know how to handle the situation when, in fact, you may be on the wrong track. There is safety in the handbooks.

(emphasis added)

While that is true in theory, Alan, I see some practical problems.

1. Who oversees these ad hoc committees? The bishopric? I thought we were lightening their loads. Does he give the elders quorum president supervisory responsibilities over the ward Christmas party ad hoc committee, the relief society president over the ad hoc Ward camp out committee and the High Priest leader over the ad hoc fall cultural event committee? That would mean you have a committee that reports to the Elders quorum that then reports to say the bishopric counselor over activities? Or do all these details get worked out in Ward Council where we're not supposed to be discussing calendar events?

2. What about budgets for these ad hoc committees? In the past, the activities committee was give a yearly budget and several ward activities, and they budgeted them all. Now it seems the bishopric has to budget them all separately. I think funding of activities on an activity by activity basis just became the responsibility of the bishop. I don't think you can assign say the Ward Christmas Party to the Relief Society, and say "it comes out of your budget."

In some ways I see this as more work for the bishopric, not less.

But, as they say, we shall see. What I can see happening on a practical level is the current activities committee being split up among the different ward council groups and put on some sort of "service committee" Then when any activities that happen on a ward basis, the activity committee re-forms but under the direction of one of the Ward Council members.

mkmurray wrote:Possibly. I'd like to share some quotes from the Leadership Training presentation that accompanied the passing out of these materials. They are instructive in regard to when making exceptions is appropriate. My only purpose in sharing these quotes is to point out that exceptions can be made to a limited number of policies and programs at the local level when guided by the Spirit by special circumstances, and after having read and understand all the existing policies and underlying principles first. I'm not saying anyone here is in danger of violating this council, but I think it is important to keep these words in mind as decisions about exceptions to the Handbook are being decided.

Having served in two YSA bishoprics, it is my opinion that the church leadership on all levels are conflicted as to what to do with YSA wards. We often felt out on our own in trying to make "existing policies and underlying principles" fit the unique problems in a YSA ward.

Just my anecdotal opinion.

idjeeper wrote:activities sometimes seem to lack balance and focus, take an inordinate amount of planning and preparation, and sometimes cost a lot of money.

It's been my observation that left on their own, activities will become bigger and grander (and more expensive). Yes, they frequently do have to be reigned in and brought back to the purpose.

TinMan wrote:Then when any activities that happen on a ward basis, the activity committee re-forms but under the direction of one of the Ward Council members.

Change that to "the same group of people" and I'd agree that's likely to be implemented.

TinMan wrote:1. Who oversees these ad hoc committees? The bishopric? I thought we were lightening their loads.

It is quite clear in the handbook. "[The bishop] may also assign responsibility for an activity to other individuals or to a committee, working under the direction of the ward council." It's under the direction of the ward council. If the ward council functions properly, it will certainly lighten the load on the bishop.

TinMan wrote:Does he give the elders quorum president supervisory responsibilities over the ward Christmas party ad hoc committee, the relief society president over the ad hoc Ward camp out committee and the High Priest leader over the ad hoc fall cultural event committee? That would mean you have a committee that reports to the Elders quorum that then reports to say the bishopric counselor over activities?

In general, the way I read the handbook, these ad hoc committees will be the exception. The auxiliary/quorum presidencies take the responsibility, but may have the help of some extra members for some activities.

TinMan wrote:Or do all these details get worked out in Ward Council where we're not supposed to be discussing calendar events?

Planning activities is clearly a responsibility of the ward council. What we are to avoid is spending lots of time discussing the calendar itself. The ward council decides on the organization(s) that will be in charge, and then those organizations go off and plan all the details, reporting back in the next ward council meeting, or through some other means before the next meeting.

TinMan wrote:2. What about budgets for these ad hoc committees? In the past, the activities committee was give a yearly budget and several ward activities, and they budgeted them all. Now it seems the bishopric has to budget them all separately. I think funding of activities on an activity by activity basis just became the responsibility of the bishop. I don't think you can assign say the Ward Christmas Party to the Relief Society, and say "it comes out of your budget."

Budgeting can still be done using an "Activities" subcategory. I agree that it makes no sense to charge the cost of ward activities to an organization that was simply given organizational responsibility.

TinMan wrote:In some ways I see this as more work for the bishopric, not less.

It should be less. Trust in the inspiration of the leaders of the Church. I think this can really work well if we work with it, not against it or around it.

TinMan wrote:But, as they say, we shall see. What I can see happening on a practical level is the current activities committee being split up among the different ward council groups and put on some sort of "service committee" Then when any activities that happen on a ward basis, the activity committee re-forms but under the direction of one of the Ward Council members.

That sounds like a rationalization for keeping the current system. There's no difference between having a permanent activities committee and having one that disbands and re-forms for every activity. If that were the intent of the new Handbook, they never would have removed the activities committee as a permanent committee.

Alan_Brown wrote:Planning activities is clearly a responsibility of the ward council. What we are to avoid is spending lots of time discussing the calendar itself. The ward council decides on the organization(s) that will be in charge, and then those organizations go off and plan all the details,

I think that's the key. When to halt the discussion to prevent co-opting the WC meeting and forcing the participants to go form their own meeting to take care of the details. It's all too easy to go into that when everyone is already there and on the subject.

Alan_Brown wrote:There's no difference between having a permanent activities committee and having one that disbands and re-forms for every activity.

I see a difference in that a permanent committee would be in a position to create more activities simply because they haven't done one in a month or two.

Alan_Brown wrote:Planning activities is clearly a responsibility of the ward council. What we are to avoid is spending lots of time discussing the calendar itself. The ward council decides on the organization(s) that will be in charge, and then those organizations go off and plan all the details, reporting back in the next ward council meeting, or through some other means before the next meeting.

For a large activity that crosses organizational boundaries, there is nothing wrong, it seems to me, with the ward council assigning different parts of the activity to different organizations.

We already do this. One organization get the setup, one gets the food, one gets the entertainment, one gets the cleanup. The responsibilities usually are different from event to event.

RussellHltn wrote:I think that's the key. When to halt the discussion to prevent co-opting the WC meeting and forcing the participants to go form their own meeting to take care of the details. It's all too easy to go into that when everyone is already there and on the subject.



I see a difference in that a permanent committee would be in a position to create more activities simply because they haven't done one in a month or two.

But in a YSA ward, activities are the lifeblood of the ward. One or two activities a month is not unusual. And who is on the Ward Council in a YSA ward? The Elders, the Relief Society, the Sunday School, and the Ward mission leader. No YM, YW or Primary. That is 3 fewer organizations to help with activities. And you have twice the activities.

Alan_Brown wrote:
Budgeting can still be done using an "Activities" subcategory. I agree that it makes no sense to charge the cost of ward activities to an organization that was simply given organizational responsibility.



It should be less. Trust in the inspiration of the leaders of the Church. I think this can really work well if we work with it, not against it or around it.


That sounds like a rationalization for keeping the current system. There's no difference between having a permanent activities committee and having one that disbands and re-forms for every activity. If that were the intent of the new Handbook, they never would have removed the activities committee as a permanent committee.

I understand the budget can go in an activities sub category. But who determines how much to put there and who has the stewardship for the day to day control of it? You don't have an activities committee any longer to submit a budget, so my assumption is the bishop(ric.) Or are you suggesting that the ward council get together "well before the end of the year" (see HB 1) and determine the budget for all the activities for the year?

And just because I am having a difficult time with the implementation and day to day operations doesn't mean I am "rationalizing" or "not trusting in the inspiration of the leaders." They gave me a CUBS program I don't understand and came with very few explanations, they wiped out all my previous budget history for the year, and the Stake has no idea what my budget allotment for next quarter will be, let alone next year. Now I am told that the Ward Council will plan all the activities with no guidance on how to plan activities with "little or no cost" for a ward of 180 families.

Forgive me for being a little confused and having just one or two questions.

TinMan wrote:I understand the budget can go in an activities sub category. But who determines how much to put there and who has the stewardship for the day to day control of it?

The bishop.

You don't have an activities committee any longer to submit a budget, so my assumption is the bishop(ric.) Or are you suggesting that the ward council get together "well before the end of the year" (see HB 1) and determine the budget for all the activities for the year?

In my ward, the bishopric turns all the budget decisions over to me (although I have to submit it for final approval first). It's no different this year. So I took some time to review the paper records, see how much money was spent on the various activities, and figure out how much we'd need for each activity planned for 2011 (fortunately, all of our 2011 activities were already scheduled). In the process of doing this, I discovered that there was no way our budget could support all the activities as envisioned, and was able to avoid catastrophe by redirecting some of the ideas toward less costly alternatives.

The things I would suggest looking at are 1) how many dinners are being planned, 2) how much does a typical dinner for your ward cost, 3) how many service projects are planned (if activities are getting expensive, suggest more community service), 4) how many low key social activities are planned. Sports nights, movie nights are a great way to bring the ward together for an evening of fun at minimal cost.

And just because I am having a difficult time with the implementation and day to day operations doesn't mean I am "rationalizing" or "not trusting in the inspiration of the leaders." They gave me a CUBS program I don't understand and came with very few explanations, they wiped out all my previous budget history for the year, and the Stake has no idea what my budget allotment for next quarter will be, let alone next year. Now I am told that the Ward Council will plan all the activities with no guidance on how to plan activities with "little or no cost" for a ward of 180 families.

Forgive me for being a little confused and having just one or two questions.

My bishop is struggling to make this transition too. The only advice I can give is to force a complete severance from "the old ways." If you cling to remnants of the old format, it will make it harder to innovate and find creative solutions within the newer framework.

TinMan wrote:But in a YSA ward, activities are the lifeblood of the ward.

I'd hope the gospel and the block meetings would be the "lifeblood".

But, yes, activities are important.

TinMan wrote:And who is on the Ward Council in a YSA ward? The Elders, the Relief Society,

And between them, you've got the whole ward. I don't think anyone is proposing that the leaders have to organize the event. Just that their organization will have some responsibilities.

a general question about this policy - do we actually release people currently serving on our activities committee, or does the guidance that they "no longer exist" suffice?

My committee chairperson was at the training meeting, and came up to me afterwards and said, "so I'm sacked then?!"

dannykos wrote:a general question about this policy - do we actually release people currently serving on our activities committee, or does the guidance that they "no longer exist" suffice?

I can't see any reason why these callings would be handled any differently from all other callings. If a person has served in a position, then at the conclusion of their service they should be extended a release and thanked for their service.

dannykos wrote:My committee chairperson was at the training meeting, and came up to me afterwards and said, "so I'm sacked then?!"

Hopefully this was spoken lightheartedly. People previously serving on the activities committee are now available for other service. In addition, they certainly could be good candidates for an ad hoc activity committee, if the bishop and ward council choose to implement such a committee at some point in the future.

Alan_Brown wrote:Hopefully this was spoken lightheartedly. People previously serving on the activities committee are now available for other service. In addition, they certainly could be good candidates for an ad hoc activity committee, if the bishop and ward council choose to implement such a committee at some point in the future.

yeah - I think they were all okay about it… reminds me of the time I was released from the stand without having even been spoken to first!?

Two quick notes. One, our High Priest's Group has been "in charge" of the 4th of July Breakfast for quite a few years. It worked just fine. The funds came out of the Ward budget, not the Activity committee.

Also, mentioning about being released from the stand with out being told before hand, I was a Seventy, and in Stake Conference, I was released as one of the "Seven Presidents of the Seventy" in the stake with out being told. In fact I wasn't even told I *was* one of the "Seven Presidents"!

dannykos wrote:yeah - I think they were all okay about it… reminds me of the time I was released from the stand without having even been spoken to first!?

Beats being called and sustained from the pulpit without having even been spoken to first. [grin]

As for the activities committee, I think the bishopric ought to figure out new callings for them, visit with them, release them personally (and then from the pulpit) and call them, sustain them, and set them apart to their new callings.

I spent the better part of last year attending PEC and Ward Council in a YSA ward. I watched as various activities were planned by either the Activities Committee, the RS, or the Elders. The most memorable and effective were those with the least involvement from the Activities Committee. Why? I believe it is because the Activities Committee had different goals than the RS and the Elders.

Yes, there will be an increased burden on the RS and the Elders, but those presidencies not only have more rights to revelation that are inherent with the calling, but now in the absence of the Activities Committee there are also more people who can be given assignments. Having witnessed first hand the miracles that occur in a ward when the RS and the Elders effectively delegate, I rejoiced as I listened to Elder Cook explain these changes.

well i'm still not sure how this is supposed to ease the burden on the bishop - now being responsible to direct activity conception, organisation, budgeting and delivery. I know that ward council members can take a large slice of that work - but I expect to be more involved in ward activity planning next year than in years past.

Anyhow - we're not here to debate the principle… carry on

Forgive me for not coming back sooner, but it looks like a spirited discussion.

Unfortunately for me, the question has become somewhat moot as our branch will be undergoing some changes in a few weeks. Many of you probably know what that means having watched the transitions in other geographic areas. Since I don't know who else might be reading this and I really don't have any details, that's all I will say. I have to say this has been about the best nine months of my service in church callings - perhaps the Lord still has a role for me but if not, life goes on and the gospel is still true.

Back to the original topic. After seeing post #3 by rpyne, I turned to the CHI to study more about the YSA Committee. Reading about the role of the committee, I believe that it could be the ideal vehicle for coordinating activities in a YSA unit. It meets as needed to plan service, leadership, gospel learning, fellowshipping, and social activities. Sounds like our activities committee. It includes a member of the bishopric, Elders Quorum counselor, Relief Society counselor, adult advisors (probably not needed in a YSA unit), and the YSA leaders. The role of YSA leader could easily be filled by what we used to call the Activities Committee Chairperson, who could also be responsible for developing annual budget requests. The only real change is that there aren't any Activities Committee Specialists. That could be filled by asking unit members to help on the ad hoc basis suggested by others in this thread.

Again I thank you all for the input. It has been very educational and I'm sure that others who find themselves working with this very special group of members will find some good insight. I'm not going away - I will have some big questions as we transition and I hope that I can continue to contribute in some meaningful way.

rpyne wrote:Take a look at section 16.3.4 and 16.3.5. I would think that a YSA branch would qualify as a ward (branch) with a significant number of young single adults. The YSA Committee could be a perfect place for a point of delegation for activities.

idjeeper wrote:After seeing post #3 by rpyne, I turned to the CHI to study more about the YSA Committee. Reading about the role of the committee, I believe that it could be the ideal vehicle for coordinating activities in a YSA unit.

I wonder how section 16.3 applies at all to YSA units. After all, that section is titled "Young Single Adults in Conventional Stakes and Wards" (emphasis added). Sections 16.4 and 16.5 deal with YSA wards and stakes. But those sections don't give any guidance on the organizational structure for activities beyond what is given in Chapter 13.

Alan_Brown wrote:I wonder how section 16.3 applies at all to YSA units. After all, that section is titled "Young Single Adults in Conventional Stakes and Wards" (emphasis added). Sections 16.4 and 16.5 deal with YSA wards and stakes. But those sections don't give any guidance on the organizational structure for activities beyond what is given in Chapter 13.

Your point is well taken. Perhaps I'm stretching too much here. In Section 16.6.1, the handbook says that YSA Wards should use the regular program of the Church as much as possible - could that include the use of a YSA Committee? I know that the paragraph closes with some specific areas in which the guidelines must be followed, but I don't see that list excluding all other areas.

I am currently the ward clerk in my YSA ward. I think it is better this way. Instead of inventing a made up calling you can just assign members or organizations to plan specific activities.
As an added bonus you set the budget for each specific activity instead of giving the entire committee a budget for the year/quarter.