Cleaning up the report

Discuss questions around local unit policies for budgeting, reconciling, etc. This forum should not contain specific financial or membership information.
User avatar
wrigjef
Member
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 8:38 am
Location: Chesapeake, Virginia
Contact:

Cleaning up the report

Postby wrigjef » Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:18 am

According to the consolidated financial statement, most units in our stake have significant unresolved financial transactions. Assuming that a simple outstanding check qualifies as an "unresolved financial transaction" that leaves six units that also have overdrawn funds. [font=Arial, sans-serif]Many of these errors are involve the “other” category but the local clerks can not really identify the deficiency. When questioned several of the clerks have mentioned that they thought they were balanced before the transition but other funds got swept away.[/font]

At the same time even following the disbursement of 2010 Q4 budget allocation checks, the stake still has a surplus. Is there any thing that can be done at the stake level to help these wards clear up their reports?

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 14692
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:46 am

wrigjef wrote:According to the consolidated financial statement, most units in our stake have significant unresolved financial transactions. Assuming that a simple outstanding check qualifies as an "unresolved financial transaction" that leaves six units that also have overdrawn funds.


Yes, an outstanding check is listed as an unresolved financial transaction, but I don't worry about those until at least a couple of months have passed. A deposit on the last day of the month can also be listed as an unresolved transaction, but those are to be expected.

Anything else in that section of the CFS should be looked at more closely and resolved.

wrigjef wrote:Many of these errors are involve the “other” category but the local clerks can not really identify the deficiency. When questioned several of the clerks have mentioned that they thought they were balanced before the transition but other funds got swept away.
...
Is there any thing that can be done at the stake level to help these wards clear up their reports?


Well, someone needs to identify the issues and resolve them. A ward financial clerk should work with his ward clerk and the stake financial clerk.

wrigjef wrote:At the same time even following the disbursement of 2010 Q4 budget allocation checks, the stake still has a surplus.


Are you saying the surplus exceeds the surplus that you had pre-CUBS? That would be a bit unusual. In our stake's case, we had a surplus pre-CUBS, and once we distributed budget allocations to the wards, we had that precise amount post-CUBS.
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.

User avatar
wrigjef
Member
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 8:38 am
Location: Chesapeake, Virginia
Contact:

Postby wrigjef » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:55 pm

Yup. Our President decided to issue Q4 allocations based on attendance numbers like normal as opposed to taking account thiose few wards who had large existing balances. The result is that the stake has surplus budget funds. My guess is that if that fuinds are not used for anything else and in fact carry over, that the President will make a supplimental allocation in Q1.


Return to “Local Unit Finance”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest