If we're being honest with ourselves, it's usually much cheaper to accept that some fraud will happen than to pay someone to prevent fraud. If a new employee costs $50K/year (including benefits), the parish will have spent as much money on this employee as lost in this *large* fraud in just 15 years. Or put another way, someone could ste…
If we're being honest with ourselves, it's usually much cheaper to accept that some fraud will happen than to pay someone to prevent fraud. If a new employee costs $50K/year (including benefits), the parish will have spent as much money on this employee as lost in this *large* fraud in just 15 years. Or put another way, someone could steal $1K/week from the Sunday collection, and it would be a nearly identical loss.
Parishes need to figure out how to distribute accountability tasks among existing employees, and bring on volunteers where possible. Parishes cannot hire their way out of problems.
Auditing the people processes and redistributing accountability tasks without paying more salaries would be ideal, of course. I'm not sure it's possible to fully assess the cost of not doing things right though.
When blatant misuse of "the money I donated" becomes public, I think it does tend to cause people to stop giving, or to leave (i.e. it is a scandal, a stumbling block), or at least to loudly claim that they have stopped giving. Sin has some consequences that are immediately visible, and other consequences that are not immediately visible. And we ought to want to do things well for the glory of God (if they are good things), rather than in an amateurish or slipshod fashion... There is a parable somewhere about this.
A fellow CPA I know does volunteer work at their church after retirement. It's an easy gig: do something you're good at where there's PLENTY of stuff to fix/upgrade. :-)
I don't think getting more volunteers to help oversee the check-cutting process is high on Father Pastor's list when he can barely get enough volunteers to teach CCD on Sundays.
How about instead of a new employee (hired and fired by one source), we consider that pastors no longer have sole authority and oversight over parish finances?
Yes, maybe the reason, but not the practice. Some pastors do what is right (which means the laity are only guaranteed this until the next pastor is named). But the members of the Council serve at the pleasure of the pastor, do not need to be publicly disclosed, and only see information and offer advice on matters the Pastor presents to them (except for large property transfers, which the pastor must hear their advice but not follow it).
If we're being honest with ourselves, it's usually much cheaper to accept that some fraud will happen than to pay someone to prevent fraud. If a new employee costs $50K/year (including benefits), the parish will have spent as much money on this employee as lost in this *large* fraud in just 15 years. Or put another way, someone could steal $1K/week from the Sunday collection, and it would be a nearly identical loss.
Parishes need to figure out how to distribute accountability tasks among existing employees, and bring on volunteers where possible. Parishes cannot hire their way out of problems.
Auditing the people processes and redistributing accountability tasks without paying more salaries would be ideal, of course. I'm not sure it's possible to fully assess the cost of not doing things right though.
When blatant misuse of "the money I donated" becomes public, I think it does tend to cause people to stop giving, or to leave (i.e. it is a scandal, a stumbling block), or at least to loudly claim that they have stopped giving. Sin has some consequences that are immediately visible, and other consequences that are not immediately visible. And we ought to want to do things well for the glory of God (if they are good things), rather than in an amateurish or slipshod fashion... There is a parable somewhere about this.
A fellow CPA I know does volunteer work at their church after retirement. It's an easy gig: do something you're good at where there's PLENTY of stuff to fix/upgrade. :-)
I don't think getting more volunteers to help oversee the check-cutting process is high on Father Pastor's list when he can barely get enough volunteers to teach CCD on Sundays.
How about Father teach CCD and leave the parish finances to the laity?
How about instead of a new employee (hired and fired by one source), we consider that pastors no longer have sole authority and oversight over parish finances?
I thought the reason parishes had financial councils was so the council could oversee parish finances.
Yes, maybe the reason, but not the practice. Some pastors do what is right (which means the laity are only guaranteed this until the next pastor is named). But the members of the Council serve at the pleasure of the pastor, do not need to be publicly disclosed, and only see information and offer advice on matters the Pastor presents to them (except for large property transfers, which the pastor must hear their advice but not follow it).