That's correct, and as the release notes explain, is intentional. The posted date now controls where items show up on various reports, not the transaction date.tbadger wrote:After having upgraded to 3.4.1_20158, our finances are showing the same issue with accounts having negative transfers showing that show for example, a posted 16 Jan. 2011 date, and a date of 31 Dec. 2011. So at least from my perspective, the issue initially addressed by the original post is evident in the 'official' release we received.
MLS 3.4.1 released - old categories returned, no longer zeroed
- aebrown
- Community Administrator
- Posts: 15153
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
- Location: Draper, Utah
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.
-
- New Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:41 pm
aebrown wrote:That's correct, and as the release notes explain, is intentional. The posted date now controls where items show up on various reports, not the transaction date.
Yes, I read the release notes, as I'm sure everyone else has, and the fact the issue is intentional doesn't solve any problems. And it doesn't change the fact that reports appear inaccurate and that I'm unable to determine how to resolve the negative balance, nor explain to any of the aux presidents why some of them are now %137, %156, etc. of budget spent.
Anyone with some USEFUL guidance, rather than stating the obvious?
-
- Member
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:26 am
- Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
tbadger wrote:Yes, I read the release notes, as I'm sure everyone else has, and the fact the issue is intentional doesn't solve any problems. And it doesn't change the fact that reports appear inaccurate and that I'm unable to determine how to resolve the negative balance, nor explain to any of the aux presidents why some of them are now %137, %156, etc. of budget spent.
Anyone with some USEFUL guidance, rather than stating the obvious?
Yes. Read the Code of Conduct.
Your reports aren't inaccurate. They just reflect everything that's been done since the beginning of the year, based on the date it actually happened.
From your description, I would hazard a guess that, in 2010, your ward transferred money from the budget allocation account into the different budget accounts *as* the budget allocation for that account (e.g. you budgeted $500 for the YM for the remaining year after the CUBS transition, so you transferred $500 from Budget:Budget Allocation into Budget:YM.) Then, after the end of the year, whatever amount was left was transferred back into Budget:Budget Allocation, or somewhere else. Before, that transfer was dated in 2010, so there was nothing carried forward in Budget:YM. That transfer now shows up in 2011, making it appear that the Budget:YM category has overspent.
If transfers were done at the beginning of the year (but dated for 2010) and they now show up for 2011, just make an opposing transfer into/from the Budget allocation account.
Thisthread may also be useful.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3908
- Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:17 am
- Location: Cumming, GA, USA
allenjpl wrote:If transfers were done at the beginning of the year (but dated for 2010) and they now show up for 2011, just make an opposing transfer into/from the Budget allocation account.
Another option might be to just increase the budget assigned to each subcategory by the appropriate amount. If there were transfers that previously showed up in 2010 but now show up in 2011, there should be a corresponding increase in the overall 2010 budget carry forward balance (as show on the Budget Allowance Summary Report). That should provide additional budget that can be allocated in this year.
Either method should work. Adding a transfer will keep the original subcategory allocations the same but will add an additional transaction on the budget reports. Adjusting the subcategory allocations avoids the additional transaction but hides what each organizations original budget was. I can see reasons for using either method.