Resolving NFS Issues Occurring Prior to CUBS

Discuss questions around local unit policies for budgeting, reconciling, etc. This forum should not contain specific financial or membership information.
mhcarson
New Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:23 pm

Resolving NFS Issues Occurring Prior to CUBS

Postby mhcarson » Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:11 pm

A ward has not dealt with returned check issues for a number of years, which has resulted in a large Other Account deficit. These problems should have been resolved before CUBS was implemented, but was not.

How does the ward clerk go about backing these hits against against the Other Account?

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 14693
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:27 pm

mhcarson wrote:A ward has not dealt with returned check issues for a number of years, which has resulted in a large Other Account deficit. These problems should have been resolved before CUBS was implemented, but was not.

How does the ward clerk go about backing these hits against against the Other Account?


The process should be the same as it was before CUBS was implemented: find the donations in the correct batches in MLS, adjust or delete the donations as appropriate, and transmit. Just as it was before CUBS, the Other account balance will be adjusted accordingly.

The problem with letting this go for so long is a much bigger issue that is independent of CUBS: Official Tax Statements were given to members at the end of each year in question with inflated figures. That might very well have led to members unwittingly filing false tax returns. I suppose you could give the members in question updated Official Tax Statements and leave it up to them what they do from there; I presume they won't be very happy, but you are doing all that you can.

Another problem if the negligence goes back before the retention period (e.g., before 2008 in the US), then there is no way to do the procedure I described above. You would then have to contact Local Unit Support for guidance.
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.

crislapi
Senior Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: USA

Postby crislapi » Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:46 pm

aebrown wrote:Another problem if the negligence goes back before the retention period (e.g., before 2008 in the US), then there is no way to do the procedure I described above. You would then have to contact Local Unit Support for guidance.


One way to perhaps extend your view is to take old backups and restore them. For example, if you restore a backup from 2008, it will contain financial information back to 2005. Of course, you will need to somehow find access to the version of MLS that was around back in 2008. That's no easy task either.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20779
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:35 am

crislapi wrote:One way to perhaps extend your view is to take old backups and restore them. For example, if you restore a backup from 2008, it will contain financial information back to 2005. Of course, you will need to somehow find access to the version of MLS that was around back in 2008. That's no easy task either.


And it's unclear if you could transmit the changes even if you could.

Given the amount of time involved, I think a call to Local Unit Support would be the best plan.
Have you searched the Wiki?
Try using a Google search by adding "site:tech.lds.org/wiki" to the search criteria.

crislapi
Senior Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: USA

Postby crislapi » Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:42 am

RussellHltn wrote:And it's unclear if you could transmit the changes even if you could.

Given the amount of time involved, I think a call to Local Unit Support would be the best plan.

Definitely best plan. I would definitely NOT run the risk of doing a send/receive when looking at a backup. I don't see how that wouldn't completely mess up your finances. This would only be an offline approach to try to identify the errors so when talking to LUS, you could tell them exactly what batches need modifying. Thanks for clarifying that one.


Return to “Local Unit Finance”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest