Expense receipt question

Discuss questions around local unit policies for budgeting, reconciling, etc. This forum should not contain specific financial or membership information.
jdlessley
Community Moderators
Posts: 9858
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:30 am
Location: USA, TX

#11

Post by jdlessley »

PNMarkW2 wrote:I agree the handbook offers no such restriction. That said, I would suggest that best practice would be not to sign any check made out to the signer...
That is a restriction for all categories and not just fast offerings.
PNMarkW2 wrote:...I would suggest that best practice would be not to sign any check made out to anyone in his family, anyone in his extended family, or anyone living in his home, regardless of the account the funds are drawn from. This is policy in our ward and serves us well to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing.
I think this is a bit excessive. Unless the signer with those relationships coerced or duped the other signer of the check to get it signed there is little chance for wrongdoing. Don't forget there is a usually a third party, the bishop (unless he is one of the signers), who must approve the disbursement also.

How cautious do we need to be? Can nobody be trusted? I think the Church has limited the chances of impropriety with the procedures established. Why add more complexity?
JD Lessley
Have you tried finding your answer on the ChurchofJesusChrist.org Help Center or Tech Wiki?
lajackson
Community Moderators
Posts: 11460
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:27 pm
Location: US

#12

Post by lajackson »

The Handbook says that an authorized check signer should not sign a check if he is the payee or the fast-offering beneficiary.

So, if the check is made out to me, I would not sign it. And if the check is made out to someone else and the purpose of the check is the providing of fast offering assistance to me, I would not sign it.

While there is no restriction for immediate family members (for a non-FO check), in practice we usually had two others sign the check. But it makes no difference, as long as the bishop has approved the expenditure and all of the paperwork is in order.
davesudweeks
Senior Member
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 9:16 pm
Location: Washington, USA

#13

Post by davesudweeks »

We follow the same process. In order to "avoid the appearance" of any potential impropriety:

1. Per church policy, the Bishop approves all expenses by signing the reimbursement form (our form works for Fast Offering expenses as well). The Clerks have been trained they will NOT print a check until the Bishop has signed the form. Full Disclosure: we consider an e-mail or verbal request from the bishop the same as a signature in emergencies (or if he is out of town) - in that case, we don't file the paperwork until he signs the form.
2. The Bishop does not normally sign any checks - one of the Counselors and a Clerk are the 2 check signers. Thus, every expense is reviewed by 3 different persons.
3. If the reimbursement is to a member of the Bishopric or clerk, they would not sign their check.
4. If any family member of the Bishopric or clerk is involved, they normally would not not sign the check unless there is no convenient way around it.

While this may seem extreme to some, we don't find it burdensome at all.
daveywest
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:19 pm
Location: Mesquite, Nevada, United States

#14

Post by daveywest »

I suggest the original poster review the audit questions with the new bishopric. One question asks if both check signers review supporting materials prior to signing checks. Obviously this isn't being done if the supporting documentation doesn't exist.

Additionally, any sort of authorization form is just a locally created tool to communicate the payee, amount and expense categories to a clerk. If an authorization form were required for audit or record keeping purposes, we would have an official form created at HQ.
Bro. West
Assistant Stake Clerk - Finance (2 years)
Former Assistant Ward Clerk - Finance (3 years)
User avatar
nbflint
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:07 pm

#15

Post by nbflint »

daveywest wrote:If an authorization form were required for audit or record keeping purposes, we would have an official form created at HQ.

The church has a form for activity planning that includes expense information. In the rare cases that this form is used and signed by the Bishop we consider it proof of authorization. We still use our authorization form as well.

While a form may not be required for an expense, the Bishop's authorization is. The form provides proof of authorization when being audited. I can't think of a better way to prove the Bishop has authorized an expense than to have a form with his signature stating so.

During one audit it was found that the Bishop had not signed the authorization form for a F.O. payment. The Bishop signed the check and other supporting documentation but not the authorization form. He had to meet with the Stake Audit Committee and Stake Presidency. There was no wrong doing and in the end it was determined that the Bishop had authorized the payment; however, his say so after the fact was not sufficient for the audit/auditor.

As clerks, it is our responsibility to document the request, authorization and payment of any of the church's expenses that come under our responsibility.

crislapi
Senior Member
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:05 pm
Location: USA

#16

Post by crislapi »

daveywest wrote:Additionally, any sort of authorization form is just a locally created tool to communicate the payee, amount and expense categories to a clerk. If an authorization form were required for audit or record keeping purposes, we would have an official form created at HQ.
Logical but incorrect. CHQ couldn't possibly anticipate all the local budget categories and needs so it has left it to the wards/stakes to create. Go through the online training again. An authorization form is required. See slide 9 and 14 in "Handling Church Expenses". A reimbursement request form is part of the required documentation.
davesudweeks
Senior Member
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 9:16 pm
Location: Washington, USA

#17

Post by davesudweeks »

Our Reimbursement request form was provided a few years ago by the Stake and all Wards were instructed to use the one the Stake provided. It was locally produced and we don't like it as well as the one we used to have, but that doesn't matter. We will comply with instruction from the Stake.
allenjpl
Member
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:26 am
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA

#18

Post by allenjpl »

nbflint wrote: While a form may not be required for an expense, the Bishop's authorization is. The form provides proof of authorization when being audited. I can't think of a better way to prove the Bishop has authorized an expense than to have a form with his signature stating so.

During one audit it was found that the Bishop had not signed the authorization form for a F.O. payment. The Bishop signed the check and other supporting documentation but not the authorization form. He had to meet with the Stake Audit Committee and Stake Presidency. There was no wrong doing and in the end it was determined that the Bishop had authorized the payment; however, his say so after the fact was not sufficient for the audit/auditor.

I find this statement puzzling. Didn't the Bishop sign the Expense report after the FO check was cut? If so, the audit form clearly says that will meet the "authorization" requirement
crislapi
Senior Member
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:05 pm
Location: USA

#19

Post by crislapi »

allenjpl wrote:I find this statement puzzling. Didn't the Bishop sign the Expense report after the FO check was cut? If so, the audit form clearly says that will meet the "authorization" requirement
The bishop's signature must appear at least once on a supporting document for an expense. From the audit form
Look at the payment documents. Make sure the bishop has approved the payments by signing at least one of the following: invoice, bill, receipt, or payment request. The bishop’s signature on the MLS Detail Expense Report is adequate proof of his approval.
This does not preclude needing all the items (receipt, payment request, check stub), and it would be better if he signed both the request and expense report. But for the audit, he must sign at least one of the documents.

Signing the check does not count as authorization since, obviously, it cannot be audited.
User avatar
nbflint
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:07 pm

#20

Post by nbflint »

allenjpl wrote:I find this statement puzzling. Didn't the Bishop sign the Expense report after the FO check was cut? If so, the audit form clearly says that will meet the "authorization" requirement

It was a new Stake Presidency and the Auditor (Head Auditor for the stake) was a stickler. Plus, I didn't think to pull the Expense report for the Audit.

Post Reply

Return to “Local Unit Finance”