Page 3 of 3

Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:56 pm
by aebrown
ralitaco wrote:Then I printed a check out of Other to reimburse the Budget category. The only question I had was how to update SLC; so I called them. I was confused because the training said call or email the information, but there was a "resend' button on the deposit screen. After speaking to a woman with a British accent in SLC, I was informed that all I needed to do was Send/Recieve the changes. Sooooo Easy!


Yes, that's one of the issues that is out of date in the training. MLS was changed over two years ago to transmit all financial changes automatically. So in multiple places in the training it says to call in the changes, but there is never a need to do that (the one exception is voiding a check in some circumstances).

ralitaco wrote:Now I have a new issue: excess funds in the Other:AMFA:YW Camp subcategory. But that's a topic for another time.


You said that you just cut a check from Other:AMFA:YW Camp and deposited it into Budget:YW. I would have thought you would have cut that check for the entire balance of Other:AMFA:YW Camp, thus bringing its balance to zero. If the camp is over and no more funds are coming in or out of the Other account, then you should bring that balance to zero. You could have done that with the one check, but you can repeat the process for the remaining balance easily enough.

Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:00 pm
by aebrown
Aczlan wrote:I am surprised that it only recently became possible to cut a check form multiple major categories. That was a feature that I used when I served as the Mission Financial Secretary in 2005-2006.
As I recall from my training with the brother at the area offices who was in charge of auditing the mission finances, the preferred method was to add a matching pair of expense lines to a check.


Mission offices used a different system from wards and stakes; in particular, if your mission was not in the US or Canada, then they used a back-end financial system called LURBS, which was much closer to CUBS than the CFAR system that was used by US/Canada for many years until CUBS came online. It was CFAR to a large extent that created much of the inflexibility we used to have.

Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 11:00 pm
by jdlessley
aebrown wrote:You said that you just cut a check from Other:AMFA:YW Camp and deposited it into Budget:YW. I would have thought you would have cut that check for the entire balance of Other:AMFA:YW Camp, thus bringing its balance to zero. If the camp is over and no more funds are coming in or out of the Other account, then you should bring that balance to zero. You could have done that with the one check, but you can repeat the process for the remaining balance easily enough.
If I understand correctly the amount of the disbursement from the budget account covered the entire expense. The amount collected from the fund-raiser and deposited into the Other:AMFA:YW Camp exceeded the expense. I do not how it would be appropriate to deposit the excess of the fund-raiser into a budget account. The disposition of the excess is up to the bishop who may need to council with the stake president. One option is to carry the excess forward to the next year for that year's camp. Another option is to apply it to camp equipment. The third option is to send it to the Corporation of the President as found in How to deal with surpluses. But I know donations cannot be made to the budget which is what would be done if the excess were placed in the Budget:YW category.

Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:11 am
by aebrown
jdlessley wrote:If I understand correctly the amount of the disbursement from the budget account covered the entire expense.


I didn't read it that way; it simply said "to reimburse the Budget category", and said nothing about reimbursing the entire amount. But it's certainly a possibility that the entire Budget expenditure has already been reimbursed. If that's the case, then you are certainly correct that it would be improper to move any more funds into Budget:YW than the actual cost of the camp. And you laid out the three options well for what to do with the excess in this case.

Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:42 am
by ralitaco
jdlessley wrote:If I understand correctly the amount of the disbursement from the budget account covered the entire expense. The amount collected from the fund-raiser and deposited into the Other:AMFA:YW Camp exceeded the expense.

That is correct.

jdlessley wrote:The disposition of the excess is up to the bishop who may need to council with the stake president. One option is to carry the excess forward to the next year for that year's camp. Another option is to apply it to camp equipment. The third option is to send it to the Corporation of the President

I am planning to meet with the bishop to see how he wants to handle the excess.

Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:18 am
by Aczlan
aebrown wrote:Mission offices used a different system from wards and stakes; in particular, if your mission was not in the US or Canada, then they used a back-end financial system called LURBS, which was much closer to CUBS than the CFAR system that was used by US/Canada for many years until CUBS came online. It was CFAR to a large extent that created much of the inflexibility we used to have.

Good to know. I served in the Rosario Argentina Mission, so it was definitely outside of the US. As I recall, we had a beta of the next version which was due to ship in late 2006. One if the improvements of the beta version was to allow multiple people to access the database simultaneously on multiple computers. As I understand, that version did a table-by-table lock to prevent the other person (or people) from changing the tables which section you were using relied on rather than the database lock that the previous version used.

Aaron Z

Aaron Z