Who Signs Checks?

[aebrown]

Isn't there a policy which addresses the leaving of checks unattended?

Yes, Handbook 1, Section 13.8 deals with the confidentiality of records, including financial records. Leaving checks unattended would seem to violate the requirement to safeguard the privacy of financial records.

[bastahmer]

I'm sure that the Handbook 1, states if a person is serving in the position of clerk they cannot be an auditor also.

Actually, we checked Handbook 1 in my stake and the Stake Financial Clerk cannot be an auditor. However, there is no such prohibition on a Ward Financial Clerk being an auditor (as long as you are careful about who audits which wards).

[gregwanderson]

There was a time many, many years ago when the bishop normally signed all the checks, and this became evidence that he had approve the expenditure. That was a long, long time ago, and no longer required. We obtain his approval for the expenditure in other ways today.

I guess I understand why The Brethren don't want to publish a list of policies that have been discontinued. On the other hand, I can understand why someone is reluctant to stop following a policy just because they can't find it in writing anymore. There's a difference between changing a policy and acting like the policy never existed.

When the new handbooks were released in 2010 the intention was that you should just forget anything that was in earlier handbooks and refer only to the new ones. But when someone can remember seeing something in writing (from a handbook that no longer exists) it's difficult to erase that memory. It seems reckless to say, "Well, just because I don't know where to find that policy I guess it doesn't apply anymore." So this puts a "low-level" member of the Bishopric organization (like an assistant clerk in charge of finances) in the awkward position of having to correct a "higher-level" member. I just hope that the person being corrected can accept the lack of a source as proof that a policy has been discontinued.

...kind of like the policy that says a Ward Finance Clerk can't be an auditor. I thought that was a firm policy too. So either I've been misunderstanding this for a long time or I just haven't seen the "lack of policy" in the newest handbook. Lately, it seems like I've often heard the phrase "It's difficult to prove a negative fact."

[allenjpl]

I'm sure that the Handbook 1, states if a person is serving in the position of clerk they cannot be an auditor also.

Actually, we checked Handbook 1 in my stake and the Stake Financial Clerk cannot be an auditor. However, there is no such prohibition on a Ward Financial Clerk being an auditor (as long as you are careful about who audits which wards).

Although the handbook seems okay with it, the auditor training says that those people with oversight over finances, including wards finance clerks, should not be
Auditors.

[aebrown]

Although the handbook seems okay with it, the auditor training says that those people with oversight over finances, including wards finance clerks, should not be
Auditors.

The exact quote from the presentation on the Stake Audit Committee's Responsibilities is:

"Because of their close ties to stake and ward finances, stake and ward clerks should not serve as auditors, or as members of the stake audit committee."

[Gary_Miller]

Although the handbook seems okay with it, the auditor training says that those people with oversight over finances, including wards finance clerks, should not be
Auditors.

The exact quote from the presentation on the Stake Audit Committee's Responsibilities is:

"Because of their close ties to stake and ward finances, stake and ward clerks should not serve as auditors, or as members of the stake audit committee."

That must of been where I saw/heard it.

However, after a review of the Handbook it does only specify Stake Clerks and Assistant Stake Clerks. So until a letter comes down for the First presidency making a change the handbook rule.

[lajackson]

So until a letter comes down for the First presidency making a change the handbook rule.

Because not everything is in the Handbook, that would be a decision that only your stake president can make for your stake.

And I would trust that his clerks, counselors, and audit committee chairman have given him all the information he needs to make a proper decision within his jurisdiction for which he holds the keys.

[Gary_Miller]

So until a letter comes down for the First presidency making a change the handbook rule.

Because not everything is in the Handbook, that would be a decision that only your stake president can make for your stake.

The point I was trying to make is even though the auditor training presentation states that ward clerks should not serve as auditors. The handbook only forbids Stake clerks and Assistant Stake Clerks. So if a Stake President chose to he could use ward clerks as auditors. As the Handbook trumps any training presentation, and only the First Presidency is authorized to make changes to the Handbook.

From the 2010 training on the use of the Handbooks.

"For most of the handbook, including its stated policies and principles, the only authority authorized to make changes is the First Presidency. We need to remember that policy directions are approved and announced only by the First Presidency. They are not introduced through rumor from one leader or member to another. Further, if you have questions, you should discuss them with your presiding priesthood leader" (Overview of the New Handbooks
Elder Dallin H. Oaks).

And I would trust that his clerks, counselors, and audit committee chairman have given him all the information he needs to make a proper decision within his jurisdiction for which he holds the keys.

I would trust that he has read the Handbook and is making the proper decision based on the guidance in the Handbook regardless of what information others have given him.

[lajackson]

The handbook only forbids Stake clerks and Assistant Stake Clerks. So if a Stake President chose to he could use ward clerks as auditors.

He could. Your reading of the Handbook is laser precise and technically correct.

He also can sign most checks (but usually does not need to), which brings us back on topic. Sorry I strayed.

[russellhltn]

I would trust that he has read the Handbook and is making the proper decision based on the guidance in the Handbook regardless of what information others have given him.

I'm not sure as I understand your position. Is it that the training only says "should not" which leaves open the possibility of allowing a clerk? Or are you saying only the Handbook matters?