Initiation Date:  April 16, 2010

Target for completion is our Kairos State Board Meeting on October 16, 2010

Subcommittee Mission

To investigate and provide prioritized recommendations on how the Florida Kairos organization should be structured. The recommended structure needs to fully support the goals and values of the National ministry while not hindering the recruiting, operations and management of the operations at the Institution level. For each of the options presented, there should be a well thought out and thoroughly researched set of advantages and disadvantages. This should include both factual information such as costs, logistics, etc. as well as representative opinions of stakeholders at the various levels: Advisory Council, Areas, States, KPMI, IC and Board. There should be clarity on what is factual and what is opinion and both should be presented in an impartial and Christian manner. The objective is allow the State Chapter Committee to arrive at a definitive decision that should serve us well for the foreseeable future.

I have attached Earl Porter’s excellent overview of the three KPMI accounting models and commentary. It is written in a way that a non-accounting person, like me, can understand it.

Brett Beemer, the KPMI CFO, has furnished us the contact information for our initial study.

They will be:

Model 1, Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. PA was chosen because they were a Model 3 at one time and it will be interesting to know why they have changed.

Model 2, California and Texas, because they are the largest.

Model 3, We need to do a self evaluation for comparison purposes.

Brett Beemer, KPMI CFO, We need a view from the top.

Final Document from our committee

    1. Should the Areas be dissolved or not? Provide supporting rationale either way. If the structure is to change from the current structure, what financial and management controls should be established to support the proposed structure?

    2. Management of funds. Will there be one checkbook at National or State level or do we keep the current structure of individual checkbooks at each Area? Also give consideration to the option of reestablishing Institutional checkbooks.

    3. Whatever proposals are presented, include a risk/gain assessment and a recommended timeline and approach for their adoption.