financial statement review signature timeframe

[CFbandm]

Does anyone know the time frame for Bishop and Clerk review/approval of monthly financial statements? The audit says "promptly", but what is the time frame? We had one audit that showed an "error" for not having signed the statement 25 days after the statement came out - June statement not signed until 25 July. It appears that the requirement is less that the month following, but one other statement signed on the 20th of a month following was accepted. Is there a minimum/maximum review/signature window?

[eblood66]

I can't remember where I read it but I thought LUFAS only marked the statement as overdue if it's been over 45 days when they are reviewed online. But I can't find where anyone said that either here in the forums, in the LUFAS help or release notes or in emails from our AAA. So that may not be right. If less than 25 days is what LUFAS is doing now then I predict a lot of exceptions this audit period. I know in our stake we didn't get our stake reviews done that fast every month.

[davesudweeks]

Like it or not, there is individual bias in auditors (because we are all human) and I have personally had some who applied their own interpretation. I had one auditor who insisted on reviewing every single financial transaction during the audit - that was a very long 6 hours! I complained to the audit chair about it and the next time he came, he sampled. If you feel the exception is unfair, you can appeal to the audit chair to review. Another thing you can do during the audit is ask the auditor to show you where the requirement is (so you can understand and make sure you help the bishop comply in the future). If he is just pulling a random number out of thin air, it's personal opinion and you can suggest that he not mark it as an exception until he verifies what the requirement is.

[eblood66]

We just had our audit last night. We did all of our financial statements reviews online. A couple of our reviews were as late as 40 days after the end of the month. LUFAS passed the review question automatically and didn't even give the auditor the option of entering an exception. So I can say that the software is programmed to accept reviews in at least that timeframe. So I assume the OP had at least one review that was on paper because otherwise the system wouldn't have allowed an exception for just 25 days into the next month.

[CFbandm]

To further explain my original question - I am a Stake Auditor. The only exception flagged by the system was the 25 day late statement for June. Because it was flagged by the system, I had to write up an exception. In previous audits, this ward has had signatures as late as 45 days that were accepted. Hence, their confusion (and mine) about what the requirements are. Just like eblood66, I thought I had read somewhere that it was a 45 day time frame, but I can't find anything written. Anyone seen any documentation on what is the accepted time frame for signature?

[jdlessley]

It appears that the audit system contains the only documentation. Previously the wording in the audit system was worded with the subjective words: "in a timely manner". I have never seen a time line documented otherwise.

With the unit financial statement going online as an electronic form I am assuming there is the expectation that the review can now be done 'in a more timely manner.'

[eblood66]

When did your audit occur? Did they review the statement before the audit was started (i.e. before you selected the transactions to review which was probably before the audit meeting)? I'm wondering if the exception gets recorded when the audit is first opened (if the review wasn't complete at that point) and doesn't change if the review is completed before the audit is complete.

[CFbandm]

I have been in contact with our area assistant auditor and he forwarded my question to our area auditor. They confirmed that the time frame for signing financial statements is 45 days. The reason for the exception in my case was that I performed the audit 25 days into July but the ward had 45 days to complete the signing of the June statement. They did sign the June statement during the audit and the area auditor told me that even though the system had flagged it, I should not have written it up as an exception (because they signed it within the 45 days) even though the system had flagged it. Seems like the last month of an audit cycle could be problematic, That clarifies the issue with me. Hope that helps others as well.

[eblood66]

They did sign the June statement during the audit and the area auditor told me that even though the system had flagged it, I should not have written it up as an exception (because they signed it within the 45 days) even though the system had flagged it.

Did it give you the option to not write it up? We had an exception that was automatically flagged (the Other:AMFA account had a balance--it was only there for a couple days between when a ward transferred funds to the stake and when we transferred it into a sub-category but those couple days were at the end of the audit period). Neither the auditor or I felt it should really be considered an exception but LUFAS did not give the auditor the option to change whether it was an exception. So instead the auditor just added some text to the automatically generated text to indicate the balance had already been resolved. I'm wondering if the financial statement flag is more flexible or whether we just missed how to change it.

[chambem]

I get a lot of reminders to review and approve expenses. I don't recall getting any to review and approve the monthly Unit Financial Statement. Is it possible for me to opt-in to receive a single reminder when this report becomes available?