Electronic Reimbursement - Approval Process

[eblood66]

Assuming we do not use a reimbursement request form, how can we prove to the auditor that the bishop gave his approval before the EFT reimbursement was issued?

I don't think that has ever been something the auditor can or should check and I don't think the audit questions ask that. Since the approval can be verbal there may not be evidence. Even with the reimbursement request form we had times where the bishop didn't actually sign the form until after the check has been issued but had given his OK in some other way. It didn't happen often but it did happen. As far as I know the auditor only checked for the existence of the bishop's signature, not that the date was before the check was printed. And now the audit form has the answers to the bishop's approval pre-populated based on approvals recorded in LCR.

[drepouille]

My experience is probably OBE by now. After being stake clerk for a few years, I was on the stake audit committee for a few years. One year, the auditor training emphasized the bishop's pre-approval. In later years, that moved into the pre-audit interview, in which the auditor asked the bishop if he approved all expenses beforehand. The actual expense audit items gave three options: bishop signs the reimbursement form, bishop signs the expense report, or bishop signs the unit financial statement. So these things change over time. Since the new online system in LCRF does not require bishop's pre-approval, I think we have moved on from that standard, although the Handbook still says that the bishop should at least be aware of each expense before it happens.

[russellhltn]

The new online process for EFT reimbursement does not require any approval from the bishop until after the expense has been reviewed by two others, and the EFT has already been issued.

Which puzzles me, since what's the bishop to do if he doesn't approve of it?

It appears what's happening isn't approval, but acknowledgement after the fact - which isn't the same thing.

[eblood66]

Which puzzles me, since what's the bishop to do if he doesn't approve of it?

He doesn't check the box and it generates an audit exception and then corrective action occurs depending on the reason. And a smart bishop would likely start appropriate corrective action before the audit.

It's not really that different than if a check is printed, signed and distributed without the bishop's approval. But the new system is likely to bring the issue to the bishop's attention sooner.

[russellhltn]

He doesn't check the box and it generates an audit exception and then corrective action occurs depending on the reason. And a smart bishop would likely start appropriate corrective action before the audit.

I'm not sure why this is preferable to having the bishop approve (in a documented way) prior to the funds being disbursed. There might be some situations involving fast offering funds that might arise, but they'd be the exception.

[eblood66]

He doesn't check the box and it generates an audit exception and then corrective action occurs depending on the reason. And a smart bishop would likely start appropriate corrective action before the audit.

I'm not sure why this is preferable to having the bishop approve (in a documented way) prior to the funds being disbursed. There might be some situations involving fast offering funds that might arise, but they'd be the exception.

I think it's to allow for the exception. Personally, I like to have the bishop be the second approver. LCR marks both approvals at once and there is no question that he approves it before it's reimbursed. With the online process he can do it when it's convenient and rarely takes him more than a minute or so. The only time I have some else sign or approve is for urgent checks (fast offering expenses and only very occasionally).

But if the church is indeed working on an electronic request submission system then I expect a pre-approval step will be available and will automatically mark what is now the post-approval check mark.

[chriswoodut]

I know it was once stressed to auditors that the bishop must approve each expense before any funds are spent, and especially before expenditures are reimbursed. That approval may be verbal, which complicates the verification of the auditor. The new online process for EFT reimbursement does not require any approval from the bishop until after the expense has been reviewed by two others, and the EFT has already been issued. The bishop actually approves each expense twice after the expense has been paid:
* LCR approval.
* Signing the unit financial statement.

Assuming we do not use a reimbursement request form, how can we prove to the auditor that the bishop gave his approval before the EFT reimbursement was issued?

I email all requests to the Bishop and ask for approval. When he responds, I save that response as a PDF and upload it into LCR with the receipts. If he proactively sends me the item to get paid (like a fast offering), that email/text gets saved and uploaded into LCR with the receipts.

[daisonm]

Does the expense reimbursement form need to be digitized and electronically attached or just the receipts?

[chriswoodut]

Does the expense reimbursement form need to be digitized and electronically attached or just the receipts?

I do include the form if someone used one. I include the approval.

[eblood66]

Does the expense reimbursement form need to be digitized and electronically attached or just the receipts?

It probably doesn't have to be attached since the bishops approval is done electronically. However, I'd still recommend including it. If there are any questions about whether the expense (whether in the audit or from an organization leader looking at their budget report), it can be helpful to have the full request information easily available.