Talk:Church Unit Banking Services (CUBS)
Quick question concerning the donor names: The document indicates that donor names can no longer be combined (e.g. "Doe, John and Jane"). Will the CUBS conversion process change these donor names in our system?
- What will happen with donor names is that donor records of type "Member" will no longer have separate donor records that you maintain separately. Rather, the membership record will be more directly linked, so that the member's name from the membership record will be linked to the donation. So it's not so much that the CUBS conversion process will change the donor names, but rather that the linkage to membership records (which already exists, but is indirect through the donor record) will become direct. -- Aebrown 04:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Another question: I'm not really sure about what the actual ward budget categories will be, and where additional sub-categories may be added. There are the 5 categories, - Sacrament Meeting - Young Men - Young Women - Primary - Young Single Adults
However, according to the instructions, "Church headquarters controls both donation and expense “Categories and Subcategories”. For “Budget” and “Authorized Member Activities (Other)” categories, the local unit may add custom unit-specific subcategories for local unit tracking. Detail at the unit-specific subcategory level will not be maintained in CUBS."
So are these two items additional Budget categories? Does anyone know how this will work?
- Don't confuse the items from the Quarterly Report that are used for calculating budget allocations with the subcategories of the Budget category. The categories you listed (Sacrament Meeting, etc.) have nothing to do with subcategories used for expenses. The stake will deal with those items as they specify budget allocations, but wards shouldn't have to worry about them.
- As for the subcategories of Budget and Other: the only change is that there are some subcategories that will be fixed and cannot be changed, but wards and stakes can still add any number of subcategories that they can use for their own purposes. The "Authorized Member Activities (Other)" category is simply a renaming and clarification of those subcategories of the former "Other" which are in the control of the unit; the other subcategories of "Other" (such as Humanitarian Aid) will now be specific categories of their own. -- Aebrown 04:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT)
When will we be able to use EFT to directly pay Tithing, Fast Offering, etc directly from our personal checking accounts and have it posted back to the Ward MLS? I understand there is a little known method of doing EFT payments now but the local unit is not made aware of the transactions and Fast Offering made this way do not go to local unit for use. There was a rumor that when CUBS is implemented that EFT would be made more generally usable.
Regards, Ed Gowen Perry Ward (Georgia)
- The little-known method is little-known for good reasons -- it is not to be used casually for convenience. I too have heard that at some point in the future after CUBS is implemented that EFT will be more generally available, but that is not happening right away. So be patient and wait for more details -- they will come when that part of the system is ready. Before that can happen, we have to make the switch to CUBS and get the rest of our systems transitioned to the new way of doing things. -- Aebrown 04:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Dwsmith2, I know you're trying to find a place to link to the orphaned Deposit Transaction Report page, but where you added a link here is not helpful. The DTR has nothing to do with the reconciliation process that was being referred to in the paragraph where you put it. That process was the monthly reconciliation that was done using the Church Unit Financial Statement. The DTR had a separate reconciliation process (which is also obsolete with the advent of CUBS).
The Deposit Transaction Report page only exists at this point in case someone happens to have an external link to it. In that case, they'll be able to see that that report no longer exists. So it's not a bad thing that the page is orphaned. If we were sure no one linked to it externally, I'd just go ahead and delete it. But of course we can't be sure of that. So let's just leave it be. Trying to cram a link into places it doesn't belong isn't going to help anyone. -- Aebrown 19:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)