Projected Budget Allowance Report

Our stake just received the Q1 2011 Projected Quarterly Local Unit Budget Allowance Reports. It's pretty much what we expected, but here are some observations:

• The "Effective Date" is listed as 6 Jan 2011. So I assume that is the date the transfers will actually occur in CUBS and then be downloadable into MLS. No mention is made of the how quickly adjustments to the Q3 2010 quarterly report or to the stake's allocation percentages would have to be made in order to affect these allocations. I would guess that is no later than 31 Dec 2010.
• There are three sections:
  1. Quarterly Summary. This shows for each unit (including the stake, which is listed as "Parent Unit") the amount of the projected Q1 deposit, broken down by category (Sac Mtg, YM, YW, Pri, YSA). This will be one page (or two for stakes with many units).
  2. YTD Summary: This shows for each quarter of the year (only Q1 so far) the total unit deposits (just the sum for all wards on one line) and the parent unit deposits, broken down by category. Then there is also a similar YTD totals section. This should always fit on one page.
  3. Detail: For the quarter for each unit, there is a row for each category, showing the amount per attendee, attendance number, total allocation (product of the first two numbers), unit allocation %, unit allocation dollars, parent allocation %, parent allocation dollars, comments (these were blank on my report). Then at the end is the stake details, showing three columns (Total, Unit, and Parent) for each category. This takes multiple pages.
• The cover letter said that unit leaders had been informed seperately, so I assume that means that wards received a similar report specifically for their wards. I have not yet verified this.

Alan_Brown wrote:Our stake just received the Q1 2011 Projected Quarterly Local Unit Budget Allowance Reports.

• The cover letter said that unit leaders had been informed separately, so I assume that means that wards received a similar report specifically for their wards. I have not yet verified this.

Normally, I guess that would be Ok, but ours are going to change once we get access to the budget allocations link to fix things. I better add that to the bishopric training agenda for next week. [grin]

Alan_Brown wrote:No mention is made of the how quickly adjustments to the Q3 2010 quarterly report or to the stake's allocation percentages would have to be made in order to affect these allocations. I would guess that is no later than 31 Dec 2010.

It would be nice to have that mentioned on the report for sure. My understanding of the statement in the 9-page message (New local unit financial processes update) sent down just before conversion to CUBS is that they must be submitted before the beginning of the new quarter, just as you stated (31 Dec 2010 for Jan 2011 disbursement):

These percentages need to be defined in MLS by the end of the month before the allowance is to take place.
2nd paragraph under Local unit budget allowance (~p3)

lajackson wrote:Normally, I guess that would be Ok, but ours are going to change once we get access to the budget allocations link to fix things. I better add that to the bishopric training agenda for next week. [grin]

You can also call in your percentages if, as in your case, you cannot access the screen to enter them in MLS. Of course, the trick is getting in!

crislapi wrote:You can also call in your percentages if, as in your case, you cannot access the screen to enter them in MLS. Of course, the trick is getting in!

I think once we get onto a regular schedule, as in, sometime later in 2011, things will settle down and work out better. Right now, we have to zero out two wards and manually issue checks because the third ward did not exist at the time of the 3rd quarter report. We are also a new stake, and have immediately found that just cutting the old budget in half will cause us grief.

So we have the perfect storm of a new financial system, a new ward division, and a new stake division, all rolled into one big tithing settlement. And apparently wards are receiving information about their 1st quarter allocations that they will wave at us and say, "But you promised" when they find out how much they are really getting. Bad form.

My adventures in getting a link in MLS to use are covered in another thread (I actually found a solution!). And as for getting through to the help desk, I have found it to be . . .

Ok, I decided to edit that last sentence in advance. Sorry to leave you in a lurch. Not like that has never happened to anyone here recently, eh? [grin]

Alan_Brown wrote:The cover letter said that unit leaders had been informed seperately, so I assume that means that wards received a similar report specifically for their wards. I have not yet verified this.

I can verify that my ward has received a letter stating what is expected for us. It is broken down by category. It shows how much the stake gets for our ward, and then what percent of each category we are given by the stake.

lambertinut wrote:I can verify that my ward has received a letter stating what is expected for us. It is broken down by category. it shows how much the stake gets for our ward, and then what percent of each category we are given by the stake.

Ooh. They are letting out all of our secrets now. And I guess the wards will see how we just changed it, too.

I'm looking at my stake report. The Project LUBA Quarterly Summary report contains all 0's for each unit, but show a reasonable amount in the Total Parent Unit's Share row. I suspect this is because we have not yet submitted percentages in MLS, even though the defaults are showing. I'm now curious if the stake MUST click submit, even if they are going to use the default percentages. It would appear so.

Alan_Brown wrote:No mention is made of the how quickly adjustments to the Q3 2010 quarterly report or to the stake's allocation percentages would have to be made in order to affect these allocations. I would guess that is no later than 31 Dec 2010.

I believe it would be safe to assume that, in addition to checks, any transfers between categories and any other financial adjustments would likely have to be transmitted to CHQ before noon Mountain Time 31 December 2010 in order to make it onto the December 2010 statement. This has been the typical pattern in years past, so I think is should be safe to assume the same will be true for the post-CUBS transition.

We received our Q1 2011 Projected Quarterly Local Unit Budget Allowance Report this week. We see our Stake has staked out a 40% share of the budget. Is 40% the default that was set with the CUBS transition?

kh_design wrote:We received our Q1 2011 Projected Quarterly Local Unit Budget Allowance Report this week. We see our Stake has staked out a 40% share of the budget. Is 40% the default that was set with the CUBS transition?

No. See here.

kh_design wrote:We received our Q1 2011 Projected Quarterly Local Unit Budget Allowance Report this week. We see our Stake has staked out a 40% share of the budget. Is 40% the default that was set with the CUBS transition?

Our report shows that the stake is keeping 100% of our allowance in all categories.

I calmly thought that was probably the default... until following crislapi's link above.

86Bengal wrote:Our report shows that the stake is keeping 100% of our allowance in all categories.

I calmly thought that was probably the default... until following crislapi's link above.

Well, it was not the default, but it seems to be what happens if the stake never submits the default table (or anything else). [grin]

86Bengal wrote:Our report shows that the stake is keeping 100% of our allowance in all categories.

I calmly thought that was probably the default... until following crislapi's link above.

The stake must actually click "Submit" on the percentages, even if they do want to use the defaults. The other option, of course, is that the stake has decided they can't figure out the new system and will therefore be collecting all the budget money and then distribute it as checks to the wards.

86Bengal wrote:Our report shows that the stake is keeping 100% of our allowance in all categories.

I calmly thought that was probably the default... until following crislapi's link above.

Our stake is also holding on to everything. Their rationale is that they can't tell how much to pass on until they see how much they are actually receiving, and what the end-of-year amounts look like. If the stake actually delays entering a percentage until after they receive their funds, will they have to cut a physical check for 1Q11? When is the hard cutoff date for entering the % and having the ward get the funds directly?

LVAllen wrote:Our stake is also holding on to everything. Their rationale is that they can't tell how much to pass on until they see how much they are actually receiving, and what the end-of-year amounts look like.

That's a nice story, but they somehow managed to do it every previous year without having to wait to see how much money they were going to get. Under that rationale, they won't be able to tell you what your budget is until October 2011.

LVAllen wrote:When is the hard cutoff date for entering the % and having the ward get the funds directly?

Percentages must be entered AND submitted by the end of December.

Our ward received the letter -- then our Stake said "Ignore it, you are getting less that what that letter says." In other words, SLC still sends the funds to the Stake and the Stake STILL determines how much will go to each ward. Our attendance in sacrament meeting has gone up every quarter for the past few years and our budget goes down.

jwnice wrote:Our ward received the letter -- then our Stake said "Ignore it, you are getting less that what that letter says." In other words, SLC still sends the funds to the Stake and the Stake STILL determines how much will go to each ward. Our attendance in sacrament meeting has gone up every quarter for the past few years and our budget goes down.

As the stake finance clerk, I'm at odds with the Stake President on how to distribute funds – but the decision ultimately falls to him as the ordained priesthood leader.

This system has dramatically changed how local finance issues are administered. Seeing the struggle others are having, It would be helpful if the Presiding Bishopric would issue guidelines for the units using CUBS or at least re-emphasize the existing governing principles.

Bro_West wrote:This system has dramatically changed how local finance issues are administered.

I do not see it that way. The only thing that has really changed is that, rather than a note from the stake financial clerk telling a ward what the quarterly budget allocation will be, the ward just gets that amount posted directly to the budget account.

Yes, there is some additional transparency into what the stake receives and how much, in terms of percentage, the stake passes on to the individual units. But that information was already available, if not so obvious.

jwnice wrote: In other words, SLC still sends the funds to the Stake and the Stake STILL determines how much will go to each ward.

Yes and no. Allocations are determined by attendance. Because the stake/parent unit has no reportable attendance, it does not receive an allocation. To have money for a budget, the stake/parent unit has always and continues to have to take a portion of the ward/child unit allocations to meet its monetary requirements.

Oversight of the budget still remains with the stake president - that hasn't changed. The stake still needs to take a portion of the unit allocations for its budget. What has changed is how they do it. They submit to CHQ the percentage of your allocation that you will receive, which CHQ will send directly to your account at the start of the quarter. The balance is delivered directly to the stake account.

So in the end yes, the stake still determines what your budget will be. The stake president approves a budget and the stake clerks use the system in place to accomplish distribution of that budget.

I like the additional transparency. Budgets should be administered in a fair, equitable way. It shouldn't be a secret, and I think the stake should be able to justify its needs. If a stake tends to put on or at least cover the expenses for many of the activities in a stake, then they should hold back a larger percentage. If, instead, the majority of the activities and expenses are borne by the ward, then I would think the ward should be getting the majority of the allocation.