A More Open MLS

[ssrail-p40]

What if the wall between Budget and Other was dropped? What is this! Based on my understanding of Accounting principles a batch is a batch meaning that each line should have a number assign to it for tracking, and that way a check could be writing from both sides of an account, for example this would be like having two checking accounts and you writing a check to yourself from the same account. you should be able to have separate batches. Maybe the MLS should do the same.

The Main Problem is (Example) the Bishop uses a credit card or personal check to help lodge a member for a night or two which comes from Fast Offeringsand also buys books and candy for the office which comes from Bishops Reserve then on a camp out with the scouts needs to buy some extra supplies for the Scouts that comes out of Other Scout camp funds. Because of the way the MLS is setup as many a Three checks would have to be written and every check will then need to be tracked in stead on writing only one check to the payee. This is the worst case situation but its happened.

That's it Maybe where could be a way to fix this some day

Thanks

[dannykos]

you can assign parts of a total payment to various categories within the one payment.

The only problem comes with trying to include more than 1 fast offering recipient on the same combined payment. Only 1 recipient per payment seems to be allowed.

[aebrown]

The Main Problem is (Example) the Bishop uses a credit card or personal check to help lodge a member for a night or two which comes from Fast Offerings and also buys books and candy for the office which comes from Bishops Reserve then on a camp out with the scouts needs to buy some extra supplies for the Scouts that comes out of Other Scout camp funds. Because of the way the MLS is setup as many as Three checks would have to be written and every check will then need to be tracked instead of writing only one check to the payee. This is the worst case situation but it has happened.

It's an interesting suggestion. I don't particularly like the idea of writing one check for three totally different purposes. That makes you create a generic Purpose line for the check, which doesn't describe the 3 separate situations very well. I think it is easier to track what the money was spent for by writing one check for each purpose. That way the documentation for the check and the associated receipts are more unified.

However, I have run into situations where it would be helpful to write a single check from Other and Budget (using appropriate subcategories, of course). This occurs, for example, when paying expenses for a Scout camp that is partially funded from the Other account because of a fund-raiser or payments made by the individual scouts using funds they earned.

It can happen that you get to a point where you have $20 left in the Other account but need to write a check for $50. You want to use up the funds in the Other account (because they can't be used for any other purpose), so under the current system your only option is to write one check from Other for $20 and another check from Budget for the remaining $30. I have to think that payees who receive 2 checks for one purpose think we're a little odd.

Okay, there is another option, and that is to write the $50 check from Other and write a $30 check to your ward from Budget and deposit it in Other (or vice versa), but that's a lot more hassle and the timing of your check writing may not correspond with the timing of your deposits.

It would be much simpler to be able to write one check to the payee, splitting $20 from Other and $30 from Budget.

[aebrown]

you can assign parts of a total payment to various categories within the one payment.

This is true only within a major category. So you can write a single check from Budget:YW, Budget:YM, and Budget:Activities, but you can't write a single check from Budget:Scouts and Other:Scout Camp.

The only problem comes with trying to include more than 1 fast offering recipient on the same combined payment. Only 1 recipient per payment seems to be allowed.

That is correct. I doubt it would be very common to have a single payment on behalf of multiple FO recipients, but if it did happen, you would have to write multiple checks.

[mfmohlma]

That is correct. I doubt it would be very common to have a single payment on behalf of multiple FO recipients, but if it did happen, you would have to write multiple checks.

I actually ran into this this week. I had two separate invoices from LDS Family Services for counseling for two different individuals. I had to write two checks, even though the bishop combined them both on our reimbursement form. Hopefully my giant annotation in the "check number" field will be obvious to me later.