Post-CUBS Audit - "Other" reconciliation worksheet changes

[aebrown]

I have attempted several variations of including real outstanding with fake outstanding with and with out the dupes, but can't seem to find the magic combination to get the difference to zero. I have never had problems reconciling the Other category and I think once CHQ fixes the bugs it will be ok. Any ideas of how to handle page 9 form on the audit with this type issue?

I had a similar problem, and CHQ fixed many of the problems, but there are still some they haven't fixed. What I saw for the most part was that what you call "duplicates" are actually corresponding transactions where one is a debit and one is a credit for the same check number. Regardless of what else I decide, I will pair up those transactions and eliminate them from the "Other" account reconciliation on the audit form, since they offset.

Once you've done that, I think you have two options, but you should ask the auditor which you should do. Although you fill out the Other account reconciliation, he is responsible for the audit form, so you should take his guidance on this topic. Here are the options I see:

1. List all the remaining outstanding items on the reconciliation form. If they won't fit, just list the total and attach another sheet.
2. Do further analysis and determine which checks have actually cleared on any statement in the past. Exclude all of those from the report and list only those that are truly outstanding.

Either way, it sounds like you'll get an audit exception, because the CHQ balance is off, but that's okay. One purpose of the audit is to show problems with the CHQ, the stake, or the ward so that they can be discovered, addressed, and corrected. We all like to have clean audits, but it's important to send the information up the line so that the Church can be aware of the magnitude of such problems. Then the various levels of the Church can follow up and make sure the problem is corrected.

[dlcampnell]

Since the CUBS change we too are seeing checks listed in the outstanding checks section of the local unit monthly financial statement which have, in fact, already been deposited by the payees some time ago. Mostly these checks numbers show up as the check number preceded by 4 zeros ie. "00001234".

There are, I think, 6 checks in this category, all written in Sept 2010. Some are Fast offering and some ward budget. I know the checks have actually been deposited as I've verified this with the payees. In MLS these checks appear as "posted" not cleared.

I've reported this issue to SLC three times and I have to say this seemed to confuse the person I've talked to. The first person I talked to suggested I simply void these checks. I refused to do this, explaining that it is impossible to void a check that has already been deposited by a payee. SLC did go ahead and void three of these checks.
The result is we are now showing a balance in our Fast Offering account and our CY 2010 budget balance carry forward is now incorrect. Subsequent followups with SLC resulted in, "oh, that is a reporting bug in MLS."

The ward budget checks involved were reclassified from one budget category to another, and I wonder if somehow this is is a cause of the problem. I have sent our MLS file to SLC on Jan 19 for them to look into this further. I haven't heard back and we still don't have our Jan 2011 monthly statement to see if any correction has been made.

From other posts, it appears I am not alone in having checks showing as outstanding, which have, in fact, already cleared the bank. Is there any explanation for this? It seems to be a CUBS transition problem to me, based on the idea that the "problem" checks in our case are all Sept 2010 checks.

[aebrown]

From other posts, it appears I am not alone in having checks showing as outstanding, which have, in fact, already cleared the bank. Is there any explanation for this? It seems to be a CUBS transition problem to me, based on the idea that the "problem" checks in our case are all Sept 2010 checks.

I am experiencing the same problem. I sent a message in January explaining the problem, which originally affected dozens of checks. As of my January statement, we're down to about 10 that are still a problem. All of them are from September and early October. Some cleared before the CUBS transition, and some after.

I don't know exactly why this happens, but I wonder if the fact that the category was changed is a factor. This would create multiple transactions with the same reference number, and it seems possible that one of the transactions would be checked off as cleared when the check actually clears the bank, but the other transaction with that reference number might not have been checked off, thus giving the appearance that the check is still outstanding. But that's just a guess.

[grantw]

On Wednesday our stake was going through the financial audit. My Auditor and financial clerk (I'm the stake clerk) were having trouble reconciling the other account in the audit. I was called in to look at it, and after digging into the differences, I found 3 checks written before CUBS change over that probably cleared after were debited from the other account in Nov. Basically, money had been taken out of other twice. Once during the CUBS change over, the second time when they cleared.

I called LUS regarding this change, and the response back was the checks had been re-categorized and for the financial audit put in "checks re-categorized" and the difference to make the worksheet balance. That's the short answer.

The longer answer is that due to the CUBS change over, the church reconcilers are way behind with reconciliations and trying to keep current data up to date. As a result, checks written late September/early October have not been "fully" cleared in the system and the February statements should show current data as far as outstanding checks. Personally I'm waiting to see the statement to be sure. As of my January statement all previous CUBS issues had been resolved except checks written early October, so maybe things will be wrapped up this month.