MLS 3.4.1 released - old categories returned, no longer zeroed

[giffordrb]

I noticed some of my old Budget:Budget Allocations subcategories reactivated after the last patch downloded. They didn't have any amounts associated with them so I was able to deactivate them easily.

I am also running 3.4.1 beta.

Thanks for the feedback. We have a few other reports of this and it looks like a setup file sent to beta units is the cause.

[crislapi]

checked on a second unit today. They, too, have some wacky balances. Old, inactive and previously zeroed categories are now active again and carrying negative balances.

[giffordrb]

checked on a second unit today. They, too, have some wacky balances. Old, inactive and previously zeroed categories are now active again and carrying negative balances.

Can you compare an income and expense report for a previous month with the CUBS unit financial statement for the same month? How do those compare?

[crislapi]

Some additional follow-up now that I've been able to wrap my head around this a little more.

MLS version 3.4.1 is going to make some changes to how the financial information displays in your financial reports (budget and I&E reports). This causes it to "behave" differently than what we are used to and has been the cause of my confusion. Understanding this has helped me make sense of what is going on. The issue to become familiar with is posting date vs date entered. All items in the financial reports will be listed by posting date. This is a change because you used to be able to backdate a transfer to a prior year, thereby keeping your current year view neat and clean. Also, adjustments made to expenses occurred on the original expense and shared the same date. Once these changes were made in MLS, the UFS between the date of the adjustment and the date the adjustment was made no longer matched. This new approach will avoid that, but it now removes the benefit of back-dating transfers (mostly to clean up lingering end-of-the year issues).

A simple example first: I looked at the budget report for one unit running the beta version 3.4.1b9 and saw two old checks (Dec 2009 and Aug 2010) showing posting dates of Feb 2011 and Sep 2011 (respectively). Further investigation showed 1) these were credits (although listed in the expenses section) and 2) the credits correspond when these old checks were voided and reissued. The Dec 2009 check was voided in Feb 2011 and therefore matches a credit for this check on the Feb 2011 UFS. The Aug 2010 check was also just recently voided (Sep 2011) and the credit will be posted in their Sep 2011 UFS. Now that I understand that, the report is beginning to make more sense.

It gets a little more confusing, however, if you went to town with recategorizing expenses and performing transfers to clean up after CUBS. I, for one, recategorized all my 2010 expenses. A setup file sent in January recategorized about half of them back to Budget: Administration. These now show in my budget report as expenses for 2011 because they are posted in 2011. Also, on Jan 3, 2011, I performed some transfers that I backdated to 30 Dec 2010 to zero out balances in many of my subcategories. The back-dating made it so 2011 used to show starting balances of $0 in all my subcategories except for Budget: Allocations. However, since I did the transfers in 2011, and the Budget Report now lists items by posting date, all those old balances now show as the 2011 starting balance in the subcategories for 2011.

In short, the more you recategorized expenses and backdated transfers, the messier your budget report will appear in 3.4.1. In short, I see no point to backdating transfers anymore since that will no longer help keep your reports clean. It will probably be much neater once the original setup adjustments fade to a distant memory, but initially it will take some getting used to as it is a different way of viewing the financial information.

[aebrown]

The issue to become familiar with is posting date vs date entered. All items in the financial reports will be listed by posting date.

That's disappointing. I don't mind the change; in fact, I've been a huge proponent of this change for well over a decade. There have been all sorts of strange accounting issues caused by (and FIS before that) choosing to backdate adjustments.

What's disappointing is that it is being done retroactively, changing existing transactions that have some hidden posting date, which now becomes the transaction date. That seems to create needless confusion. It would be much better to keep all current transactions with their current dates, and then for all new transactions, use the posting date.

[giffordrb]

It would be much better to keep all current transactions with their current dates, and then for all new transactions, use the posting date.

This was discussed but did not allow us to meet the goal of making sure reports in MLS match reports in CUBS. That goal has driven most of the changes in 3.4.1. Still - I understand the confusion around this.

[crislapi]

3.4.1 has been officially released. It downloaded today. Since what I noticed was not a result of a bug, others may in fact see some old expenses and transfers reappearing on their 2011 reports. If a corresponding transaction does not appear on your UFS for the posting date, contact LUS.

One small change - the word "Other" has been removed as a financial category. Items now appear as just "Authorized Member Financed Activities" and its subcategories.

[davesudweeks]

3.4.1 came in today as I was preparing for Ward Council. I let it download while I was in the meeting and I saw several of the old categories jump in with negative balances in them. I have been trying to keep it all straight, but it seems that as soon as I try to correct these changes I learn that the instruction was wrong and I should just leave it all alone.

Now I'm a bit afraid to even touch the old categories for a few months for fear I will again be in the middle of the post CUBS instruction: Fix it, oops you shouldn't have fixed it. Fix it a different way, oops that was not the correct instruction either.

If this hadn't just goofed up the ward's budget, I would just leave it alone for a few months but I guess now I need to do something. Anyone have any good ideas???

Fortunately, it looks like there are only about 3 or 4 old "Other" accounts that reappeared - all have negative balances. But I already pulled money from the Budget to fix them once before - I won't be very popular with the ward organizations when I hit their budgets again to re-zero the negatives... And what happened with the money that was "spent" to zero them originally, since they jumped back to negative?

[crislapi]

Anyone have any good ideas???

I use the view/edit budget screen to set budgets for each subcategory. I leave all allocation funds in Budget Allocations until the end of the year. I then transfer to cover the ytd expenses, zeroing the subcategories before the end of the year. It keeps the budgeted amount in its own column and does not create actual transactions to do so. Because of this, I knew I could zero out all my transfers columns. Anything with a positive balance went back to Budget Allocations. Anything with a negative balance was brought to zero using funds from Budget Allocations. Some of my expenses categories also had positive balances. If they did, I moved the positive balance to Budget Allocations as well.

I could worry about 2010 vs 2011 expenses, but decided not to. I am fortunate it that respect - I'm the only one who worries about that stuff. My stake president doesn't worry about subcategory budgets, so I don't need to sweat that. As long as the total balance is correct and we still have money, he's happy to let anyone spend it even if it puts them beyond what they were budgeted. You could look at a detail report of each category and transfer money over to zero out any 2010 expenses. A lot of my 2010 expenses were credits due to a setup file undoing my recategorization of my 2010 expenses, so watch for that.

One additional comment - I've picked up from my communications with LUS that they prefer we use transfers instead of recategorizing expenses. I don't say that I agree with it, but every time I tried to recategorize my 2010 expenses, it would get hung up in CUBS and then would be undone. My inquiries why led to that reply.

Fortunately, it looks like there are only about 3 or 4 old "Other" accounts that reappeared - all have negative balances. But I already pulled money from the Budget to fix them once before - I won't be very popular with the ward organizations when I hit their budgets again to re-zero the negatives... And what happened with the money that was "spent" to zero them originally, since they jumped back to negative?

Your total remaining budget should not have changed. There should be corresponding positive transfers somewhere to compensate. I will warn you of one remaining known bug - the transfers in the budget allocations category is not correct. Run a detail report of your budget allocations category and compare that to what shows on your screen in summary view. Mine is about $60,000 off. I have sent an email to LUS about this and received the following reply:

Thank you for your feedback on the 3.4.1 upgrade. There are some problems that we are working on correcting with the Budget Allocations Category. We will be looking into these problems in detail and are working on correcting them, if you continue to experience problems that are causing you concern, please give us a call when you are at the unit, in front of the computer, after having completed a send/receive changes, and we will be able to work on these issues with you. Our hours of business are 8am-5pm Monday, Thursday and Friday and 8am-8pm Tuesday and Wednesday. The best contact number to reach us on is 1-800-453-3860 ext. 23500.

[russellhltn]

One additional comment - I've picked up from my communications with LUS that they prefer we use transfers instead of recategorizing expenses. I don't say that I agree with it, but every time I tried to recategorize my 2010 expenses, it would get hung up in CUBS and then would be undone. My inquiries why led to that reply.

I can see why that might be. If you recategorize, you're changing a transaction posted by CHQ. I can see where that can create problems - or at least become a bug magnet. Particularly since it seems the main goal here is to get MLS and CHQ to be in sync with each other. The next time it syncs, you could lose your edit.

By using a transfer, you're creating a new transaction where you are the "owner".

But I also understand that from a clerk's standpoint, it would be better to be able to recategorize.