Audit - two authorized approvals

[BrianEdwards]

It's probably clear to most, but I'm not sure so I'll ask. From the above discussion it seems like the system should ideally be able to detect when the Bishop is submitting an expense for himself, and prevent that from going through (and thus avoiding an audit issue). Right now, it seems like it's a manual process to detect and avoid this from happening.

Is this correct? And are there other cases (like the Bishop entering and then printing a check which he doesn't sign), that make sense for the system to allow this to go through?

[eblood66]

Is this correct? And are there other cases (like the Bishop entering and then printing a check which he doesn't sign), that make sense for the system to allow this to go through?

We were just discussing this in our stake audit last Sunday. The auditors have seen more instances of bishops doing this now that there is not a separate Young Mens presidency. We couldn't figure out why the system doesn't just block this and only gives a warning. You'd assume there must be since it does allow it to happen. But even then I think a more strongly worded warning which indicates the only cases where it is appropriate (assuming there are such cases) would be beneficial.

[jonvance]

I just want to say I am having this same issue. The Church expense system allows the Bishop to electronically submit, approve, and pay himself a reimbursement without any other approver at any point in the process. However, during an audit, these expenses are automatically flagged for review under "the system could not find two approvers". Of course it couldn't find two approvers! It allowed the expense to go through with only one! There is no way to "find" a second approver. Our Area Auditor insists this is an exception then why does the Expense platform allow it?

I would really appreciate some official guidance from the Church Finance Department on this.

Hello
I am a stake auditor, auditing a ward. I am confused in reading the audit question:

Does the payment have two authorized approvals and proper support documents that match the Church financial system?

The unit has uploaded receipts and I can see the bishop's automated approval has taken place. Why is the audit system asking if their are two authorized approvals? That is what the LUFAS is set up to do, is it not? It seems like this question should only be focused on whether the support matches the payment. I shouldn't be looking for two authorized approvals - there is no where to look. But the first question #8 indicates the system has already found the bishop's automated support so I should be able to assume the necessary approvals have taken place.

Thanks!

[jdlessley]

I would really appreciate some official guidance from the Church Finance Department on this.

That won't happen here. You could ask your audit committee chairman to contact the area auditor for instruction.

[garystroble]

It would appear the business rules for the audit and the approvals were never coordinated. Wonder how long it will take them to be.

[waynecooke]

Unfortunately, as was witnessed in the MLS conversion in October of 2010, not all Church Financial changes are without bugs.