Missing Donation Batch in MLS

[gpetersen-p40]

One of my ward's financial clerks has advised me a donation batch created in July doesn't exist in his MLS files. The donation is recorded on his CUFS. I suspect a restore was done shortly after that batch was created, but the backup used was not current and did not include that batch.

I would think he could just re-enter the batch (as well as any other transaction that may also be missing) and notify HQ of the problem so they know not to expect additional money from that batch.

Has anyone gone through this process, and if so, am I on the right track? Is there any way I can force MLS to use the same batch number as the original?

[aebrown]

One of my ward's financial clerks has advised me a donation batch created in July doesn't exist in his MLS files. The donation is recorded on his CUFS. I suspect a restore was done shortly after that batch was created, but the backup used was not current and did not include that batch.

I would think he could just re-enter the batch (as well as any other transaction that may also be missing) and notify HQ of the problem so they know not to expect additional money from that batch.

Has anyone gone through this process, and if so, am I on the right track? Is there any way I can force MLS to use the same batch number as the original?

You're probably correct in your suspicion of the cause of the problem, and exactly right about the procedure to correct it. You should be able to enter the batch exactly as was done the first time. If a database backup restore is the cause of the problem, it is certainly possible that other transactions are missing, so they should look carefully for those. And it is prudent to call CHQ to let them know about the batch.

I know of no way to force MLS to use the same batch number, but it is the date that really matters, so I wouldn't worry about that detail (which is not part of the audit instructions, so it won't matter at all).

[russellhltn]

And it is prudent to call CHQ to let them know about the batch.

It may be prudent to call, but if I'm not mistaken it's required to notify. Correct?

(That is if you want to avoid minor problems like a overdrawn local account. )

[lajackson]

It may be prudent to call, but if I'm not mistaken it's required to notify. Correct?

You should call, especially if you have a local deposit account. If you are on deposit concentration, it is also helpful to call. CHQ will sometimes notice the duplicate deposit, but I would not depend on them discovering it first.

[aebrown]

It may be prudent to call, but if I'm not mistaken it's required to notify. Correct?

I'll be careful in the future not to use any understatement around a bunch of clerks . For many people, "prudence" is sufficient to move them to action, but I guess not with extremely literal clerks.

[russellhltn]

Hey, that's what I'm here for.

In the same vein, I guess "required" is just a bit strong, but I didn't want others to get the impression that the step was somehow optional.