Scouting and YW Girl's Camp Sub Accounts

Discuss questions around local unit policies for budgeting, reconciling, etc. This forum should not contain specific financial or membership information.
cmcgougan
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:44 pm

Scouting and YW Girl's Camp Sub Accounts

Postby cmcgougan » Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:48 pm

I printed the reports for the Bishop on these two sub accounts and they each show that they have several thousands of dollars more than the bishop thinks they should have. Is it possible these reports are incorrect or does Salt Lake reconcile the bank accounts against MLS? Thanks in advance.

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

Postby aebrown » Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:58 pm

cmcgougan wrote:I printed the reports for the Bishop on these two sub accounts and they each show that they have several thousands of dollars more than the bishop thinks they should have. Is it possible these reports are incorrect or does Salt Lake reconcile the bank accounts against MLS? Thanks in advance.


MLS should be synchronized with CUBS (the back-end system from which CHQ generates financial reports) because CHQ sends all transactions down to MLS. But CHQ doesn't really "reconcile" accounts against MLS.

If you have a subcategory that seems to have a strange balance, I would look at a few things:

  • You didn't mention whether these were subcategories of Other (Authorized Member Financed Activities) or Budget. It might help troubleshooting if you let us know which major category you are talking about.
  • How does the overall balance look? Is it reasonable?
  • Do any other subcategories look high or low?
  • Does the balance forward at the beginning of the year look reasonable, for each subcategory and overall?
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.

cmcgougan
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:44 pm

Postby cmcgougan » Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:23 pm

aebrown wrote:If you have a subcategory that seems to have a strange balance, I would look at a few things:

  • You didn't mention whether these were subcategories of Other (Authorized Member Financed Activities) or Budget. It might help troubleshooting if you let us know which major category you are talking about.
[color=black]These are subcategories of "Other"
[/color]
aebrown wrote:
  • How does the overall balance look? Is it reasonable?
The balance on one of the accounts was $7K and the other one was $6K.
aebrown wrote:
  • Do any other subcategories look high or low?
[color=black]I don't think so but I'll double check.[/color]
aebrown wrote:
  • Does the balance forward at the beginning of the year look reasonable, for each subcategory and overall?
[color=black]I ran report dating back to Jan 2009 and the balance forwards were $5K and $4K so this obviously dates back some time.[/color]The Bishop thought it should be around $1500 for each category.

I appreciate the help. I'm new to this calling so this is a great help. I'll check on this stuff and repost later.

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

Postby aebrown » Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:34 pm

cmcgougan wrote:I ran report dating back to Jan 2009 and the balance forwards were $5K and $4K so this obviously dates back some time.
...
The Bishop thought it should be around $1500 for each category.


Note that we have received various transmissions from CHQ over the past 14 months or so that have changed balances, including balances forward, after the fact. At this point, if all has gone according to plan, your balances forward should match the Unit Financial Statements. So another thing to check is what the balance was on the statements as well. For another 5 weeks or so, you should have access to 2008 data as well, if you want to go that far back. If you really have had an unexpected increase in your total Other balance of about $10K, it sounds like it was in 2008 or before, if your 2009 opening balance was equally high.

In any case, it's possible that the bishop's memory isn't precise, or that something was incorrectly changed in the various CUBS data updates, or that the money is in a different category. If the statements match MLS a long way back, I have to think the bishop's memory is the problem. Anything else you should be able to track down if it occurred after 1 Jan 2008. If it is anything before that, I would just be grateful for the extra money, and follow the usual procedures for excess funds.
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20757
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:10 pm

aebrown wrote:follow the usual procedures for excess funds.


Here's a quick guide: How to deal with surpluses.

If that money really has been in there awhile, I suspect there's going to be an unpopular decision.
Have you searched the Wiki?
Try using a Google search by adding "site:tech.lds.org/wiki" to the search criteria.

atticusewig
Member
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:48 am

Postby atticusewig » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:52 am

Look for a negative balance in any of the other categories.
If you have one (especially if it is large), the transition to CUBS might never have been
properly made. If you can find a copy of the Other reconciliation report
for an audit performed prior to Oct 2010, you can use that as a baseline for
the account balances, and then go through the paper records for the expenses
and donations moving forward to determine the actual balances. It is a hassle,
but it sure is better than returning excess funds you don't really have.

- Atticus

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20757
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Sat Nov 26, 2011 12:55 pm

atticusewig wrote:It is a hassle, but it sure is better than returning excess funds you don't really have.


I believe, that if the system shows money in the AMFA as a whole, it's really there. However, the subcategories may be mixed up by the transition. I think one of the effects was that expenses got moved to the top level while deposits remained in the subcategory. That would result in the appeaance of excessive funds in those categories, but the AMFA as a whole would be correct.
Have you searched the Wiki?

Try using a Google search by adding "site:tech.lds.org/wiki" to the search criteria.


Return to “Local Unit Finance”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest