What to do when company won't accept a check

I was recently asked what to do when a company
won't accept a check. Details are that this is
a title loan company and is Fast Offering Assistance.

Assuming the leadership isn't financially able to cover
the expense personally, what course is best to take ?

Some ideas so far include to give an "advance" for the expense
made out to the Bishop, who cashes it at his Bank and gets a
money order or Cashier's Check which is presented to the
Title Loan Company. Then all receipts are brought back for
the "advance" 's documentation. Would prefer a method that
doesn't give the auditors any extra stress, however.

Also, does payment to the title loan company violate a rule
regarding payment of certain types of debt with Fast Offering funds ?

Thanks,
Atticus

When I was finance clerk, I would first call the company that's requesting the payment be cash/money order/cashier's check only and explain that our church organization would be paying the bill for the individual and ask them politely if they would accept our check. More than half the time they were good with that, as long as it reached them by a predetermined date.

Failing that, we would make the check out to a local bank, including whatever fees they needed to cover a cashier's check. A member of the bishopric would take the check to the bank and bring back all the paperwork showing who the bank check was drafted to. That check was then mailed.

As to your last question, if the bishop is OK with it, then you should be too. He has specific training (and inspiration) in that regard.

I don't know if I have access to Handbook 1 anymore, but I seem to remember something that said it is not appropriate to use Fast Offerings to pay for "consumer debt." I take that to mean credit card debt or, say, payments on the TV someone bought at Best Buy. (And, like, the person receiving assistance needs to liquidate their "toys" like their campers and ATVs before the church comes to their rescue.) Title Loan companies prey on desperate consumers in the worst way (...I know someone who got into hot water with that stuff). But is that "consumer debt"? Is there additional guidance on "consumer debt" in the current Handbook?

I hesitate to say that "if the Bishop is okay with it then I am too." I know a Bishop who is new to the calling and recently approved an expense which was tagged by CHQ as inappropriate... and he got a scolding letter for his actions (but he's still Bishop). Often, an experienced clerk may counsel a less-experienced Bishop on something like that.

atticusewig wrote:Also, does payment to the title loan company violate a rule
regarding payment of certain types of debt with Fast Offering funds ?

This would be considered consumer debt and the instruction specifically say that fast offerings cannot be used to pay for consumer debt.

As a clerk I feel its my responsibility to gently remind the Bishop that paying this kind of expense goes against the handbook of instructions. I usually do this by sending the paper work the Bishop give to be to cut the check back to him with a note and the reference in the handbook. If the Bishop still wants to do it he will send it back with a note to precede, which has not yet happened once he reviews the guidlines.

Don't have access any more - but I'm pretty sure HB1 says 'should not' rather than 'cannot'?

Anyone with HB1 access confirm either way?

dannykos wrote:Don't have access any more - but I'm pretty sure HB1 says 'should not' rather than 'cannot'?

Anyone with HB1 access confirm either way?

HB 1, Section 5.2.4, item #5 under Fast Offerings: I won't quote it, but the prohibition is strong and unconditional (not just a "should not").

As I read that section, that prohibition is only if the debt is incurred because of business failure of speculation. Do you read it the same as if the consumer debt was incurred because of trying to get enough money to eat or pay the mortgage?

Seen on a tee shirt:

"LETS EAT GRANDMA!"
"LET'S EAT, GRANDMA!"
"Grammar: Saves lives."

That being said, we are instructed to provide where possible, commodities (food, clothing, shelter) or services like utility bills, medical bills, etc. and allow the person to use left over cash to pay other bills, like consumer debt.

TinMan wrote:As I read that section, that prohibition is only if the debt is incurred because of business failure of speculation.

While it does talk about business expenses as well its very specific about consumer dept also.

TinMan wrote:Do you read it the same as if the consumer debt was incurred because of trying to get enough money to eat or pay the mortgage?

Consumer debt is consumer debt no matter what its used to purchase. The handbook does not say don't help people because of consumer dept it says to not pay consumer debt. The key is to help people become self-reliant which can be done by helping them understand that the program is to "sustain life but not lifestyle" this is done by providing commodities instead of giving them money or paying their bills. The key to remember is welfare assistance is designed to be temporary".

Gary_Miller wrote:it says to not pay consumer debt.

No, it does not. At least in the section quoted by aebrown.

But to discuss further would bring down the wrath of the moderators for thread drift.

TinMan wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote:it says to not pay consumer debt.

No, it does not.

I agree that point #5 can be read in two different ways. One way definitely says that payment of any consumer debt is prohibited, period. The other way says that the consumer debt that cannot be paid is only that debt that is a result of business ventures. Which way is correct? That's a question for inspired priesthood leaders to answer.

TinMan wrote:But to discuss further would bring down the wrath of the moderators for thread drift.

Actually, the original post asked two questions (bad form, but no moderator fixed that early). So this discussion is relevant to one of those two questions.

And moderators try not to have wrath.

aebrown wrote: I agree that point #5 can be read in two different ways. One way definitely says that payment of any consumer debt is prohibited, period. The other way says that the consumer debt that cannot be paid is only that debt that is a result of business ventures. Which way is correct? That's a question for inspired priesthood leaders to answer.

Or a high school English teacher who has no accounting background. The sentence includes two predicates. "consumer debt" and "other obligations" connected by the word "or" without any other punctuation, like a comma or a period. (contrary to what you say above.) That means the two phrases could be reversed "...obligations or other consumer debt..." When you reverse them, does it mean the same thing as you are thinking? The "or" also means you could leave the second clause right out of the sentence "...consumer debt that results from..." or whatever the exact wording is.

To mean what you want it to mean it would be better if written "...consumer debt, or other obligations..." And even then it is marginal because the focus of the sentence is what follows, "failed business or speculations." To CLEARLY mean what you and Gary said above, there would actually have to be a period after "consumer debt."

Again.

"Grammar: Saves lives."

Wow. We have a real-live grammar debate. Good thing the Code of Conduct only prohibits legal, political, and religious debates.

TinMan wrote:The sentence includes two predicates. "consumer debt" and "other obligations" connected by the word "or" without any other punctuation, like a comma or a period. (contrary to what you say above.)

That's actually not contrary to what I said above. I wasn't talking about the actual punctuation, but rather I was talking about two different ways it could be read. I think it's clear from various posts that people do indeed read it in those two different ways.

Those might be the two simple predicates, but determining what the complex predicates are requires us to agree on what the correct parsing is. There seem to be two different absolute positions; I can see it both ways. But (spoiler alert!) I do have a preference.

TinMan wrote:That means the two phrases could be reversed "...obligations or other consumer debt..." When you reverse them, does it mean the same thing as you are thinking? The "or" also means you could leave the second clause right out of the sentence "...consumer debt that results from..." or whatever the exact wording is.

Of course reversing those two phrases doesn't result in the same meaning. But I don't agree with the absolute rule you put forth that those two phrases are what can be reversed to preserve the original meaning. We basically have "A or B of type C". You say it can only mean "A or B" and the restriction "of Type C" applies to both A and B. Others say it can only mean "A" or "B of type C" where the restriction applies only to B and thus A stands alone, unrestricted.

I do tend to agree that your parsing is much more likely to be what was intended. But I have enough experience with the English language to know that parsing is not always as cut-and-dried as we might hope. It involves a writer and a reader, and in this case there is no English language arbiter (high school English teacher or anyone else) with authority to make the binding interpretation.

TinMan wrote:To mean what you want it to mean it would be better if written "...consumer debt, or other obligations..." And even then it is marginal because the focus of the sentence is what follows, "failed business or speculations."

I don't know why you think you know what I want it to mean. I'm pretty sure your assumption is exactly the opposite of the truth.

In any case, we don't get to change the wording. It is what it is.

TinMan wrote:To CLEARLY mean what you and Gary said above, there would actually have to be a period after "consumer debt."

I didn't take an absolute position. I merely said that I could see how it could be read two ways.

TinMan wrote:

aebrown wrote: I agree that point #5 can be read in two different ways. One way definitely says that payment of any consumer debt is prohibited, period. The other way says that the consumer debt that cannot be paid is only that debt that is a result of business ventures. Which way is correct? That's a question for inspired priesthood leaders to answer.

Or a high school English teacher who has no accounting background. The sentence includes two predicates. "consumer debt" and "other obligations" connected by the word "or" without any other punctuation, like a comma or a period.

Actually this is incorrect. The sentence only says 'obligations', not 'other obligations' (or at least the online version does...I don't have the printed copy available to me right now).

TinMan wrote:(contrary to what you say above.) That means the two phrases could be reversed "...obligations or other consumer debt..." When you reverse them, does it mean the same thing as you are thinking? The "or" also means you could leave the second clause right out of the sentence "...consumer debt that results from..." or whatever the exact wording is.

To mean what you want it to mean it would be better if written "...consumer debt, or other obligations..." And even then it is marginal because the focus of the sentence is what follows, "failed business or speculations." To CLEARLY mean what you and Gary said above, there would actually have to be a period after "consumer debt."

I hate to argue writing with a high school English teacher but...

According to most current style guides a comma should not be used before an 'or' in a list of items UNLESS the sentence is complex and could otherwise be ambiguous. Obviously at least some people see ambiguity here so I can understand that argument.

But I would argue from good technical writing style (and a handbook like this is technical writing) that it is not ambiguous. Specifically, good technical writing requires concise wording without redundancy (except occasionally for emphasis). If this sentence were to only apply to business obligations you could leave out the consumer debt phrase entirely and the sentence would still mean the same thing. Even if you wanted to emphasize debts in specific it would be better to use just the word 'debt' because surely the sentence doesn't exclude actual business loans from the prohibition. The use of the term 'consumer debt' would either be redundant or confusing.

However, if the intent is to mention two separate things, consumer debt and business obligations, then the use of the term consumer debt is very appropriate.

Of course, poor writing style is a possibility that I can't deny so my arguments could be wrong. And if my bishop decided to pay such a debt, I would make this argument, possibly recommend he consult with the stake president and then follow his decision.

aebrown wrote:

TinMan wrote:To CLEARLY mean what you and Gary said above, there would actually have to be a period after "consumer debt."

I didn't take an absolute position. I merely said that I could see how it could be read two ways.

You may not have, but Gary_Miller did. That is what I was responding to.

However, you said: " ...but the prohibition is strong and unconditional (not just a "should not".)"

Don't you think "unconditional" is pretty absolute?

TinMan wrote:You may not have, but Gary_Miller did. That is what I was responding to.

But you lumped me in with him. I was merely stating that I was not in the absolute camp, and that I had not said what he said.

TinMan wrote:However, you said: " ...but the prohibition is strong and unconditional (not just a "should not".)"

Don't you think "unconditional" is pretty absolute?

Absolutely.

Of course, I was responding to a question that dealt only with "should not" vs. "cannot" and not with what the prohibition was referring to. I think you would agree that the wording "do not" is unconditional. The only ambiguity regards what it applies to, not whether we are dealing with a suggestion, recommendation, or absolute prohibition.

Thanks for fixing my quote problem. I couldn't figure out how to do it.