Caution when Comparing CUBS income & expense report Sunday

Discuss questions around local unit policies for budgeting, reconciling, etc. This forum should not contain specific financial or membership information.
User avatar
gregwanderson
Senior Member
Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:34 pm
Location: Huntsville, UT, USA

#11

Post by gregwanderson »

lajackson wrote:Now CHQ adjusts MLS for us. [grin]
...and I did NOT like the way CHQ adjusted it for us! :)
User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 15128
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

#12

Post by aebrown »

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.
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.
waynecooke
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:05 pm
Location: Kalama, Washington

#13

Post by waynecooke »

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.:D
crislapi
Senior Member
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:05 pm
Location: USA

#14

Post by crislapi »

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.
User avatar
gregwanderson
Senior Member
Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:34 pm
Location: Huntsville, UT, USA

#15

Post by gregwanderson »

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
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:05 pm
Location: Kalama, Washington

#16

Post by waynecooke »

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
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:05 pm
Location: Kalama, Washington

#17

Post by waynecooke »

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.
Post Reply

Return to “Local Unit Finance”