Caution when Comparing CUBS income & expense report Sunday

gregwanderson · Post by **gregwanderson** » Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:26 pm

lajackson wrote:Now CHQ adjusts MLS for us. [grin]

...and I did NOT like the way CHQ adjusted it for us!

aebrown · Post by **aebrown** » Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:38 pm

JLRose wrote:We have 10 units in the stake and indeed I see 10 entries on 7 Oct 2010 for the Q4 allocations. However, the comment "CFAR LUBA Standard allocation for Q4 2010" appears for each entry. How are we to discern which allocation is for which unit? I thought unit numbers might be imbedded in each individual Ref. No., but it isn't.

Stakes still receive a Budget Allocation report (I have our stake's Q4 report in hand), explaining exactly how the allowance was calculated for each ward. So you can consult that report and line up the numbers. But I agree that it would be helpful to have something in the description of the allocation entries that let us know which ward is which.

waynecooke · Post by **waynecooke** » Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:46 pm

There seem to be quite a few questions and quirks and dare I say problems with this massive roll-out. Did any hear that you should never get version 1.0 of anything.

Thanks for all your help. This has helped a lot. I am just an old truck driver, but have been financial clerk for 11 years total, 3 wards and 5 bishops starting when there were NO computers involved at all, just paper. Hopefully this will be as great an improvement as when we went to computers in the first place.

crislapi · Post by **crislapi** » Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:05 pm

wcooke wrote:There seem to be quite a few questions and quirks and dare I say problems with this massive roll-out.

CUBS is functioning exactly as the developers intended. Everything that has happened was expected. What has been problematic was the instructions given to us (provided by the MLS team. not CUBS). Remember, CUBS is just the financial system running in the background. Any of the actual problems so far are MLS related.

gregwanderson · Post by **gregwanderson** » Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:22 pm

Yes, instructions were the real problem here. I dare say that I would have had no complaints if I had received a memo like this (which I'm writing as if I were at CHQ and this were 10 days ago).

"Please be aware that the MLS conversion will overwrite all financial data on your unit's computer including all sub-category information from every parent category. In order to retain this data, you will need to print hard copies of ALL detail reports for every sub-category of Budget, Other and Ward Missionary categories."

That's all I needed. We have a PDF utility which works like a printer driver so I could have "printed" every kind of report avaiable without using any paper and the reports would never have left the hard drive. Oh, well. Spilled milk. But I can't help thinking it will take a long time before I fully trust instructions from the MLS powers-that-be again. I foresee lots of "PDF Printouts" whenever I notice new versions of MLS installing themselves.

waynecooke · Post by **waynecooke** » Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:05 pm

I guess that I misstated myself a little. The *Ver. 1.0* was a bit of computer humor. I, too, feel that the problem was information. I looked at the email that was sent, and had questions before I even knew what was happening. It was the *roll-out*, not the software that seems to be the problem. This forum has really helped me out. Thank you all.

waynecooke · Post by **waynecooke** » Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:21 pm

I guess that I misstated myself a little. The *Ver. 1.0* was a bit of computer humor. I, too, feel that the problem was information. I looked at the email that was sent, and had questions before I even knew what was happening. It was the *roll-out*, not the software that seems to be the problem. This forum has really helped me out. Thank you all.