Fast Offering Report Disparities
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:22 pm
Hope this doesn't take too long to describe but hopefully I can elaborate enough to see if any of the rest of you are seeing something similar and know what may be causing it.
Last weekend we had a Bishop's Welfare Council. One of the agenda items is to discuss how the units in general are doing on fast offering donations and expenses. One of our stake counselors developed a spreadsheet that shows each units fast offering donation totals ytd, expenses ytd, and budget expenditures ytd. It also shows which categories of fast offering disbursements are highest (for our stake it is usually housing and utilities where most fast offering funds are used). It is this stake generated report that is used for the discussion.
During the discussion one of the Bishops mentioned that the DONATION data for his ward didn't look right. I went back and looked at his Unit Financial Reports, the Stake Consolidated Finance Reports and what the spreadsheet report developed by the stake counselor shows for January, February and March. For the unit in question their January Unit Finance Report, Stake Consolidated Report and the stake developed report all show donation total to be the same amount. However when looking at the Batch Summary Reports in MLS the total is $580 less than what the Church supplied reports show.
The February reports and Batch Summary reports all show the same donation total amount but the March report shows another discrepancy - this time in the amount of $1200 less in the Batch Reports than the Church supplied reports.
I called LUS and asked them why the Unit and Consolidated Reports would show more in donations than the batch reports show. They were unable to explain why there would be a discrepancy between the Unit Finance Report (and the Consolidated Finance Report) and what the monthly batch summary reports show. One idea was that there were returned checks or such but none of the monthly reports show any shortages or "action items" that would explain differences as great as $580 in Jaunary or $1200 in the March case. (Likewise, neither the Unit Finance Report nor the Stake Consolidated Finance Report show any fast offering "returns/reimbursements"). LUS suggested ensuring fast offering donations are being entered correctly but even that would not explain the disparity as far as I can see.
Anyone out there have any ideas?
Last weekend we had a Bishop's Welfare Council. One of the agenda items is to discuss how the units in general are doing on fast offering donations and expenses. One of our stake counselors developed a spreadsheet that shows each units fast offering donation totals ytd, expenses ytd, and budget expenditures ytd. It also shows which categories of fast offering disbursements are highest (for our stake it is usually housing and utilities where most fast offering funds are used). It is this stake generated report that is used for the discussion.
During the discussion one of the Bishops mentioned that the DONATION data for his ward didn't look right. I went back and looked at his Unit Financial Reports, the Stake Consolidated Finance Reports and what the spreadsheet report developed by the stake counselor shows for January, February and March. For the unit in question their January Unit Finance Report, Stake Consolidated Report and the stake developed report all show donation total to be the same amount. However when looking at the Batch Summary Reports in MLS the total is $580 less than what the Church supplied reports show.
The February reports and Batch Summary reports all show the same donation total amount but the March report shows another discrepancy - this time in the amount of $1200 less in the Batch Reports than the Church supplied reports.
I called LUS and asked them why the Unit and Consolidated Reports would show more in donations than the batch reports show. They were unable to explain why there would be a discrepancy between the Unit Finance Report (and the Consolidated Finance Report) and what the monthly batch summary reports show. One idea was that there were returned checks or such but none of the monthly reports show any shortages or "action items" that would explain differences as great as $580 in Jaunary or $1200 in the March case. (Likewise, neither the Unit Finance Report nor the Stake Consolidated Finance Report show any fast offering "returns/reimbursements"). LUS suggested ensuring fast offering donations are being entered correctly but even that would not explain the disparity as far as I can see.
Anyone out there have any ideas?