Tech Forum

My experience has been that if the expense entered into LCR is paid by paper check and the receipts are not uploaded then the system behaves just as if using MLS. The two signatures on the check are the two approvals required. Of course the second approver is supposed to review the paper receipts before signing. Where the second approver needs to be at the clerk computer at the same time as the first approver is when the expense is paid by EFT and the receipts are not uploaded.

There are four scenarios for paying an expense.

1. Paid by paper check and paper receipts are not uploaded - the two approvals are the check signatures.
2. Paid by EFT and paper receipts are not uploaded - the two approvals are through the system and both approvers must e-sign at the same computer during the same logon session before the payment can be completed.
3. Paid by EFT and receipts are uploaded - second approval done online from any Internet connected device using web browser. This is the most convenient for both approvers.
4. Paid by paper check using MLS to process the payment as has been done in the past and is very much the same as scenario 1 above. This scenario has an expected termination as some soon to be future date for most U.S. units.

jdlessley wrote:My experience has been that if the expense entered into LCR is paid by paper check and the receipts are not uploaded then the system behaves just as if using MLS. The two signatures on the check are the two approvals required. Of course the second approver is supposed to review the paper receipts before signing. Where the second approver needs to be at the clerk computer at the same time as the first approver is when the expense is paid by EFT and the receipts are not uploaded.

Ahh! That's the difference. In my experience, I was doing an EFT. I'm not sure why there needs to be so many variations. IMO, they should just make all things paperless and then have the check option and EFT option. We just did our stake audit and it was so much faster having the paperwork all uploaded and the auditor checking them before he arrived. He only had to do a couple from before we had access to the new tool.

chriswoodut wrote:I'm not sure why there needs to be so many variations. IMO, they should just make all things paperless and then have the check option and EFT option.

Not everywhere and not everyone can do paperless. We convert all paper receipts to digital and then there is a single front-end process with either an EFT or a paper check. But that scenario won't work everywhere. For those areas in the church where the paper option is still the only viable option, there needs to be accommodation.

davesudweeks wrote:

chriswoodut wrote:I'm not sure why there needs to be so many variations. IMO, they should just make all things paperless and then have the check option and EFT option.

Not everywhere and not everyone can do paperless. We convert all paper receipts to digital and then there is a single front-end process with either an EFT or a paper check. But that scenario won't work everywhere. For those areas in the church where the paper option is still the only viable option, there needs to be accommodation.

I get that. But, I would think they could turn that on/off at the unit or stake level.

I received an email from our YW president that described in detail what was purchased and which budget categories should be used for the expense. She attached photos of each receipt. I downloaded each receipt image, and then saved the email as a PDF. I was surprised to find that the PDF of the email included all the receipt photos, so I didn't really need to download each receipt as a separate file. I just upload the PDF, and the reviewers can open each embedded photo image. A pleasant surprise.