CUBS Additional Clarification

[crislapi]

With what little instructions that have been sent down from Salt Lake and what we find here on the web site it is no wonder so many clerks are confused and frustrated.

It is a new system and no one here really knows what "normal" is yet. I know my units are not having anywhere near as much trouble as you seem to be having, so perhaps that indicates something did go wrong with your conversion. It's hard to know for sure - there's no history or experience to fall back on.

[kisaac]

The attached pdf file has been created to hopefully clarify a couple of questions...

From the pdf file:

CAUTIONS
 Prior the CUBS transition, units were instructed to print their income and expenses reports. If you did not print these prior reports, DO NOT RESTORE AN OLD MLS BACKUP FILE.

The question is not answered in the PDF...what about those units that didn't fully understand/comply with the instructions to print these prior reports? What exactly is the "official CHQ" recommended course of action? Automatic release of all clerks? (cheering heard in background)

Some have restored a backup to another new MLS on another computer and then printed the needed reports....

Should an update like this happen again, and because any user may initiate a send/receive who doesn't know anything about the finance changes it will make (membership clerk, organizational users, bishopric,) may I suggest a notice at the beginning of any send/receive session that will over-write our data:

Warning: This update will over-write your existing finance data, and is irreversible. Choose 'continue' to proceed, or 'abort' to exit and allow your finance clerk to print the needed reports.

[crislapi]

So it looks to me like the Budget Allocation Report in MLS used incorrect data or at least an incorrect accounting method to come up with erroneous balances. Rather than the actual balance remaining in the stake budget of $90,306.59, the most recent report shows we have $169,588.84 which isn't correct.

The report is giving erroneous balances which just confuses matters rather then helping. So it makes me wonder what else in the data that is showing up in the post CUBS transition is right.

I took a look at my reports tonight and did find large discrepancies between what the Budget Report and the Income and Expense Report show. Specifically, the Balance Forward column in the Budget Allocation Report is all zeroes while the Income and Expense report has a large negative total. The totals in income, expenses and transfers exactly match on both reports. The Budget Allocation Report also contains a column "Allocation" that will contain any values you enter in the "View/Edit Budget" screen. I have not entered any, so my total here is zero as well.

The obvious difference is the Balance Forward column. Therefore, on the Budget Allocation Report my Balance total is huge while on my I&E report it matches values I compute manually using the SFS. In fact, the difference is exactly equal to the balance forward. I'm going to again guess this is causing the error you are seeing.

Perhaps not relevant but I would be curious what this would look like run as an Income & Expense report instead of budget allocation. My reports show a negative balance forward which offset the transfers. You don't mention one.

I will agree with you that the two should give the same answer. I don't know why the Balance Forward column differs in the two reports. However, for the time being save yourself the headache and use the Income & Expense Report.

[crislapi]

I will agree with you that the two should give the same answer. I don't know why the Balance Forward column differs in the two reports.

I thought about it on the way home and have a thought. The budget report does not pass information from the previous year to the current year. It never did. In fact, when you set the date range, it does not allow you to span fiscal years. It appears to have built into it an automatic zeroing feature at the start of each year. This fit perfectly into the old system but does not work well with the new system, which allows you to carry balances forward year to year.

So currently the budget report will only show balance forwards from the current fiscal year. If your start date is Jan 1 then you would have no balance forward. I would chalk this one up to oversight on the part of the MLS team and would therefore expect a patch to be sent down as one of the early "fixes".

I'll also mention that the balance forward totals on the Income and Expense report don't make any sense. They get larger as you move back in time (my 2007 balance forward was ~-$450,000). It appears they are what they needed to be to yield the correct remaining balance for 2010. Again, my 2010 I&E report remaining balance exactly matches what I compute from my SFS.

[russellhltn]

The budget report does not pass information from the previous year to the current year.

I think you're right. Budget always zeros out each year while Income and Expense carries over. So I think there's two issues that will come out:

1) CUBS is exposing all the "dirt" swept under the carpet for the last 3 years. Units that have had good clerks will get by OK. Those who are recovering from past neglect will have problems.

2) In units that lose the budget at the end of the year, the Income and Expenses will have errors problem reconciling the old system to the new.

As for if this is a problem or not - I just see it as tools. If a ward chooses to have auxiliary budgets zero out at year end, they'll be given a budget and a budget report (Just remember to transfer the money out before closing the year). If they are allowed to carry over, they'll be given a transfer and a E&I report.

[ffrsqpilot]

I will agree with you that the two should give the same answer. I don't know why the Balance Forward column differs in the two reports. However, for the time being save yourself the headache and use the Income & Expense Report.

I concur. The Income and Expense Report does show an amount closer to what our Stake Financial Summary Report shows. I don't understand the ins and outs of the programming but at least it is somewhat starting to make sense. I hope I haven't been too much of a pain in your side, but far too many things didn't make sense when I started delving into them. I appreciate your efforts.

[jeromer7]

Not wanting to get off on a tangent to memory lane... I can't resist pointing out that there are many of us here that remember the days of paper accounting for Church finances (multipart, using carbon paper and lots of correction tape). Then MIS & FIS were born. I wasn't a clerk then, but was a ward finance clerk near the end-of-life with FIS and loved it.

Then I was called as Stake Executive Secretary and missed the transition from MIS/FIS to MLS. Within two years of that, I was a Stake Clerk. And many here will also remember the much grousing (on the clerks' maillist and even in the early days of the Forum) about the early days of MLS.

So, I appreciate those that are working hard to help us all get over the bumps. Think what it would have been like without the Forum. I appreciate the many wonderful changes in-place and yet to come in MLS and with new.lds.org.

We are very lucky indeed.

[aebrown]

Your last statement isn't quite right. I indeed do have my October expenses - we already have our October Stake Financial Summary report. Most Stake Presidents were sent this report this last week.

Our stake has not received the Stake Financial Summary for the partial month of October. I don't think I've seen any post except for this one that claims that it has been received. I'm pretty sure that every unit (both stake and ward) has received the Oct 1-17 Church Unit Financial Statement electronically in MLS, but that's quite a different thing.

The SFS is essential to figuring out how much budget to give to each ward. Without it, we're still in limbo regarding how to divide budget funds and send checks to the wards. At least according to past practice, this would be sent in the mail (not electronically via MLS).

Is it indeed the case that most stakes have the SFS? If so, I'll need to figure out why our stake doesn't.

[brodine]

We have nothing here... although ours always seems to be late anyway for some reason. Maybe we should offer a big prize, like a pat on the back, to those that report that they have gotten it.

[crislapi]

Is it indeed the case that most stakes have the SFS? If so, I'll need to figure out why our stake doesn't.

I know they were only mailed out last week. We have not yet received ours.