Signature required for reimbursement form?

[jdlessley]

...the counselor cannot authorize expenditures.

This is correct. See CHI, book 1, p 157, Managing Stake and Ward Checking Accounts.

[lajackson]

I hate to disagree, but the counselor cannot authorize expenditures. The bishop is the only one that can authorize expenditures at the ward level.

Ok. When he gets back in a few months, we'll have him do it. [grin]

I forget sometimes that it is not normal to live in an area where the first counselor is, in fact, acting as the bishop while the bishop is away for a lengthy amount of time. But, we deal with this every day in five of our wards. During those absences, if the handbook does not say the bishop may not delegate this responsibility, the first counselor can do it in this stake. (CHI 13)

That pretty much rules out performing weddings and holding disciplinary councils. I don't recall anything else right now that the counselor cannot do.

You are absolutely correct, though, that the principle is that the bishop is the one who authorizes all expenses. Barring an exceptional situation such as ours, the bishop needs to sign the forms.

[jdlessley]

I don't want to get into a discussion of policy any further than has already been done. But I do want to explain my understanding of authorizing an expenditure. In the reference to the CHI I gave it does not say how the approval is to be given. I have had a previous stake president interpret the CHI instruction to mean that while a bishop was out of town he could authorize the expenditure by phone and then sign the appropriate documentation after returning. The counselor signed in his place with an appropriate notation made on the request for reimbursement. The bishop then added his signature to the appropriate documents upon his return.

The audit checklist item 25 states:

All expenditures are approved by the Bishop.
See Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1, 157, 159.

As an auditor I look for any indication that the bishop approved the expenditure before the disbursement. A notation of explanation and the bishop's signature, even after the fact, is sufficient to me to show that the bishop approved the expenditure before the disbursement was made.

I have not come across the situation where the bishop was gone for an extended period of time. But I would suppose that if the stake president establishes or approves procedures to be followed while the bishop is absent, that would be appropriate since he is the next level of financial responsibility for unit funds.

[nutterb]

Just to kinda go along with this, is a normal turn around time for a reimbursement the next Sunday?

The following Sunday seems appropriate, although I might suggest you try to take into consideration the needs of the individuals receiving disbursements. For instance, we have a lot of student (ie, low income) families in our ward. If we receive a reimbursement request for $75, we understand that's a lot of money for some of these families and try to get the reimbursement to them that same day. I guess I just mean to say that the clerk's response time shouldn't put a family in financial strains if it can be avoided.