Second leader expense approval

Discuss questions around local unit policies for budgeting, reconciling, etc. This forum should not contain specific financial or membership information.
allenjpl
Member
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:26 am
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA

Second leader expense approval

Postby allenjpl » Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:44 am

In the mid-year audit, I found this curious statement under the instructions for "Payments" (Just before questions 16-20):

"Church policy requires that the bishop and at least one other leader review each expense or reimbursement request and give approval."

When I'm auditing, I'm looking for evidence the bishop approved it. I've never cared whether the reimbursement request was also approved by another leader/advisor. If this was intended to mean that the two people signing the check need to review the support documents, I agree. But the two people signing the check are frequently not the bishop, and who signed the check isn't recorded anywhere that I can review anyway. I haven't seen anything else in writing that says the approval of another "leader" is church policy. Any ideas on where this came from?

drepouille
Senior Member
Posts: 1492
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: Plattsmouth, NE
Contact:

Re: Second leader expense approval

Postby drepouille » Thu Jul 27, 2017 11:28 am

See this Help Center article: https://www.lds.org/help/support/expenses-and-reimbursements
The expense or reimbursement request form should have a place for:
•The bishop’s signature.
•The organization leader’s signature.

It is important that the organization leader approves all expenses from the organization's budget.
Dana Repouille, Plattsmouth, Nebraska

drepouille
Senior Member
Posts: 1492
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: Plattsmouth, NE
Contact:

Re: Second leader expense approval

Postby drepouille » Thu Jul 27, 2017 11:30 am

who signed the check isn't recorded anywhere that I can review anyway

You are also required to verify appropriate signatures on a sampling of cancelled checks using the LCR Finance application.
Dana Repouille, Plattsmouth, Nebraska

allenjpl
Member
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:26 am
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA

Re: Second leader expense approval

Postby allenjpl » Thu Jul 27, 2017 11:44 am

drepouille wrote:
who signed the check isn't recorded anywhere that I can review anyway

You are also required to verify appropriate signatures on a sampling of cancelled checks using the LCR Finance application.


That... is also totally new. It gives the finance clerk something to do other than just hand me the transactions I'm reviewing, I guess.

carlscpa
New Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: CA USA

Re: Second leader expense approval

Postby carlscpa » Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:54 am

Are there any instructions as to how large the sample size should be?

drepouille
Senior Member
Posts: 1492
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: Plattsmouth, NE
Contact:

Re: Second leader expense approval

Postby drepouille » Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:55 am

I can't access LUFAS at the moment, but I believe the sample size is specified on the audit form's instructions.
Dana Repouille, Plattsmouth, Nebraska

allenjpl
Member
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:26 am
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA

Re: Second leader expense approval

Postby allenjpl » Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:14 am

carlscpa wrote:Are there any instructions as to how large the sample size should be?


You check for the signatures on all of the checks you are testing. The ward audit calls for at least 18 payment transactions, including payments, fast offering assistance, automatic charges, and large or unusual payments. The signature check applies to each. It takes the place of checking to make sure the payment information corresponds to what was listed in the monthly statement.

drepouille
Senior Member
Posts: 1492
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: Plattsmouth, NE
Contact:

Re: Second leader expense approval

Postby drepouille » Sat Aug 05, 2017 1:24 pm

Audit question #18 has been removed from the audit for now. Too many auditors were logged out of LUFAS when the clerk logged in to LCR to verify signatures on cancelled checks. The convenience of SSO interferes with the multiple-login requirements of the audit.
I think this is unfortunate, since it is so easy to switch users in Windows 10, or even to use a second computer or tablet to access LUFAS.
Dana Repouille, Plattsmouth, Nebraska


Return to “Local Unit Finance”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest