Discuss questions around local unit policies for budgeting, reconciling, etc. This forum should not contain specific financial or membership information.
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3702
- Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:17 am
- Location: Cumming, GA, USA
jdlessley wrote:He has entered his own reimbursement request expenses and been marked as an approver as well as the bishop's approval. Only one other approver has been necessary to complete the EFT payment process in the system.
That was my experience in the US as well but that was during the beta test so I wasn't sure it still applied. But from what Biggles says, it sounds like the US and UK differ in this respect.
jdlessley wrote:Now we will see what happens with the audit.
My guess is that it will not come up. There is currently no instructions in the audit to look at the approvers or check signers to make sure the payee is not an approver or signer. But that doesn't change the fact that policy says the payee should not sign a check and the web site indicates that the payee shouldn't be an approver. So I wouldn't do it in the US regardless.
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2812
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:06 pm
- Location: Plattsmouth, NE
When I was a member of the stake audit committee, the chairman asked me to review every completed audit and comment. I frequently pointed out checks that should not have been signed by the recipient, but my comments were ignored. Auditors may still be required to inspect every cancelled check image to ensure it had two signatures.
Dana Repouille, Plattsmouth, Nebraska