Who Signs Checks?

I have served as a financial clerk in 4 different wards over a period of quite a few years. And yet, some confusion remains in my mind about who can/should sign checks and in what circumstances. I believe my confusion arises from having been told conflicting information by various clerks and auditors and perhaps by policy changes. I understand that the Bishop is required to approve all expenditures; my questions are specifically regarding the signing of the actual checks. I was recently called again as a finance clerk, so please answer the following questions according to current policy:

1) Is the Bishop required to sign all checks?
2) Is the Bishop required to sign all fast offering checks?
3) Is it against policy for the people listed on the signature card to sign checks made payable to themselves?
4) Is it against policy for the people listed on the signature card to sign checks made payable to family members?

Finally, what should I consider as the definitive source of policy? Between MLS instructions, information on LDS.org, instructions from auditors, church handbooks, and verbiage on audit forms, I'm not sure the policy is always clear and consistent.

mbs6 wrote:1) Is the Bishop required to sign all checks?

No. He's required to approve each expense, but nowhere will you find any official documentation that says that he must sign each check. The documentation simply says that two authorized signers must sign each check.

mbs6 wrote:2) Is the Bishop required to sign all fast offering checks?

No. Specifically, in the RKATS article Paying Expenses of Ward Members, it is affirmed that the bishop must approve all fast-offering expenses, but regarding the signing of the check, it only says that two authorized signers must sign.

mbs6 wrote:3) Is it against policy for the people listed on the signature card to sign checks made payable to themselves?

Yes. See Handbook 1, 14.6.7.

mbs6 wrote:4) Is it against policy for the people listed on the signature card to sign checks made payable to family members?

In the RKATS article I linked to above, you'll see that it is specifically against policy for someone to sign a fast offering check for someone they are related to. But I don't see any prohibition like this for other checks.

mbs6 wrote:Finally, what should I consider as the definitive source of policy? Between MLS instructions, information on LDS.org, instructions from auditors, church handbooks, and verbiage on audit forms, I'm not sure the policy is always clear and consistent.

The handbook is authoritative, but not always completely explicit on all these details. Instructions on the RKATS site are official. Audit instructions are also authoritative, but what a particular auditor may say (except for quotes from authoritative sources) is not necessarily official. I would say that MLS instructions aren't always kept up to date, but they are from an official source as well.

I find it rare for official sources to be inconsistent, but different sources will have varying levels of specificity. If you find inconsistencies, feel free to raise them here on the LDSTech Forum and then report them to the appropriate Church department.

Excellent. Thank you for the clarity. Of all the questions raised, the one which gives me the most trouble is whether the Bishop must sign all checks, most especially fast offering checks. I've encountered several auditors and clerks over the years who insist the Bishop must sign all checks. I prefer to have counselors sign the checks once I have the Bishop's approval. The Bishop has enough to do without me inventing requirements for him. Having him sign every check often requires me to interrupt and command his attention toward paperwork when he is busy with ecclesiastical matters.

mbs6 wrote:I've encountered several auditors and clerks over the years who insist the Bishop must sign all checks.

I have been a financial clerk for many years and an auditor for many years (currently, I am both) and I can tell you that there is guidance and there is opinion. While performing an audit, one thing that I am careful to do is to NOT give my opinion about how another clerk should do something, unless I am asked and it is understood as opinion. What aebrown said above is absolute guidance, since it is linked to sources. One thing to keep in mind about your call is that (in my opinion) one of the primary purposes of clerks is to take as much of the administrative burden off of the bishop as possible (to allow him to minister to the members). Having him both approve payments and sign checks puts an unnecessary adminsitrative burden on him.

mbs6 wrote:I've encountered several auditors and clerks over the years who insist the Bishop must sign all checks.

There was a time many, many years ago when the bishop normally signed all the checks, and this became evidence that he had approve the expenditure. That was a long, long time ago, and no longer required. We obtain his approval for the expenditure in other ways today.

bastahmer wrote:One thing to keep in mind about your call is that (in my opinion) one of the primary purposes of clerks is to take as much of the administrative burden off of the bishop as possible (to allow him to minister to the members).

That's not just your opinion. The video Role of the Ward clerk says "How can I help lighten the administrative burden of the bishop?"

bastahmer wrote:I have been a financial clerk for many years and an auditor for many years (currently, I am both) and I can tell you that there is guidance and there is opinion.

I'm sure that the Handbook 1, states if a person is serving in the position of clerk they cannot be an auditor also.

Since the bishop has to sign the report that prints out (can't remember the name), after the checks are written I have him sign the checks as well. I usually write checks on Tuesday, I staple the approval forms with the checks to the report and place them in a folder which I place in his box to sign at his conveyance, usually on Wednesday when he is in the building for YM/YW. I very seldom track him down to just sign a check.

I appreciate all the responses and suggestions. I like Gary's suggestion, but I worry about leaving printed checks in any location that's not fully in my control. Our clerk's office is shared with two other wards and gets lots of foot traffic. Isn't there a policy which addresses the leaving of checks unattended?

mbs6 wrote:Isn't there a policy which addresses the leaving of checks unattended?

The only policy I know of is leaving Blank Checks unattended. Never the less if that's a worry you could leave the folder in the bishops office.

mbs6 wrote:Isn't there a policy which addresses the leaving of checks unattended?

Yes, Handbook 1, Section 13.8 deals with the confidentiality of records, including financial records. Leaving checks unattended would seem to violate the requirement to safeguard the privacy of financial records.

Gary_Miller wrote: I'm sure that the Handbook 1, states if a person is serving in the position of clerk they cannot be an auditor also.

Actually, we checked Handbook 1 in my stake and the Stake Financial Clerk cannot be an auditor. However, there is no such prohibition on a Ward Financial Clerk being an auditor (as long as you are careful about who audits which wards).

lajackson wrote: There was a time many, many years ago when the bishop normally signed all the checks, and this became evidence that he had approve the expenditure. That was a long, long time ago, and no longer required. We obtain his approval for the expenditure in other ways today.

I guess I understand why The Brethren don't want to publish a list of policies that have been discontinued. On the other hand, I can understand why someone is reluctant to stop following a policy just because they can't find it in writing anymore. There's a difference between changing a policy and acting like the policy never existed.

When the new handbooks were released in 2010 the intention was that you should just forget anything that was in earlier handbooks and refer only to the new ones. But when someone can remember seeing something in writing (from a handbook that no longer exists) it's difficult to erase that memory. It seems reckless to say, "Well, just because I don't know where to find that policy I guess it doesn't apply anymore." So this puts a "low-level" member of the Bishopric organization (like an assistant clerk in charge of finances) in the awkward position of having to correct a "higher-level" member. I just hope that the person being corrected can accept the lack of a source as proof that a policy has been discontinued.

...kind of like the policy that says a Ward Finance Clerk can't be an auditor. I thought that was a firm policy too. So either I've been misunderstanding this for a long time or I just haven't seen the "lack of policy" in the newest handbook. Lately, it seems like I've often heard the phrase "It's difficult to prove a negative fact."

bastahmer wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote: I'm sure that the Handbook 1, states if a person is serving in the position of clerk they cannot be an auditor also.

Actually, we checked Handbook 1 in my stake and the Stake Financial Clerk cannot be an auditor. However, there is no such prohibition on a Ward Financial Clerk being an auditor (as long as you are careful about who audits which wards).

Although the handbook seems okay with it, the auditor training says that those people with oversight over finances, including wards finance clerks, should not be
Auditors.

allenjpl wrote:Although the handbook seems okay with it, the auditor training says that those people with oversight over finances, including wards finance clerks, should not be
Auditors.

The exact quote from the presentation on the Stake Audit Committee's Responsibilities is:

"Because of their close ties to stake and ward finances, stake and ward clerks should not serve as auditors, or as members of the stake audit committee."

aebrown wrote:

allenjpl wrote:Although the handbook seems okay with it, the auditor training says that those people with oversight over finances, including wards finance clerks, should not be
Auditors.

The exact quote from the presentation on the Stake Audit Committee's Responsibilities is:

"Because of their close ties to stake and ward finances, stake and ward clerks should not serve as auditors, or as members of the stake audit committee."

That must of been where I saw/heard it.

However, after a review of the Handbook it does only specify Stake Clerks and Assistant Stake Clerks. So until a letter comes down for the First presidency making a change the handbook rule.

Gary_Miller wrote:So until a letter comes down for the First presidency making a change the handbook rule.

Because not everything is in the Handbook, that would be a decision that only your stake president can make for your stake.

And I would trust that his clerks, counselors, and audit committee chairman have given him all the information he needs to make a proper decision within his jurisdiction for which he holds the keys.

lajackson wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote:So until a letter comes down for the First presidency making a change the handbook rule.

Because not everything is in the Handbook, that would be a decision that only your stake president can make for your stake.

The point I was trying to make is even though the auditor training presentation states that ward clerks should not serve as auditors. The handbook only forbids Stake clerks and Assistant Stake Clerks. So if a Stake President chose to he could use ward clerks as auditors. As the Handbook trumps any training presentation, and only the First Presidency is authorized to make changes to the Handbook.

From the 2010 training on the use of the Handbooks.

"For most of the handbook, including its stated policies and principles, the only authority authorized to make changes is the First Presidency. We need to remember that policy directions are approved and announced only by the First Presidency. They are not introduced through rumor from one leader or member to another. Further, if you have questions, you should discuss them with your presiding priesthood leader" (Overview of the New Handbooks
Elder Dallin H. Oaks).

lajackson wrote:And I would trust that his clerks, counselors, and audit committee chairman have given him all the information he needs to make a proper decision within his jurisdiction for which he holds the keys.

I would trust that he has read the Handbook and is making the proper decision based on the guidance in the Handbook regardless of what information others have given him.

Gary_Miller wrote:The handbook only forbids Stake clerks and Assistant Stake Clerks. So if a Stake President chose to he could use ward clerks as auditors.

He could. Your reading of the Handbook is laser precise and technically correct.

He also can sign most checks (but usually does not need to), which brings us back on topic. Sorry I strayed.

Gary_Miller wrote:I would trust that he has read the Handbook and is making the proper decision based on the guidance in the Handbook regardless of what information others have given him.

I'm not sure as I understand your position. Is it that the training only says "should not" which leaves open the possibility of allowing a clerk? Or are you saying only the Handbook matters?

russellhltn wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote:I would trust that he has read the Handbook and is making the proper decision based on the guidance in the Handbook regardless of what information others have given him.

I'm not sure as I understand your position. Is it that the training only says "should not" which leaves open the possibility of allowing a clerk? Or are you saying only the Handbook matters?

I am saying in matters where the training differs from the handbooks, the handbooks is the policy.

Gary_Miller wrote: I am saying in matters where the training differs from the handbooks, the handbooks is the policy.

I disagree. Not all policy is written in the handbook. The training does not contradict the handbook.

russellhltn wrote:I disagree. Not all policy is written in the handbook.

Your right not all policy is written in the Handbook. However, "We need to remember that policy directions are approved and announced only by the First Presidency. They are not introduced through rumor from one leader or member to another." (Overview of the New Handbooks Elder Dallin H. Oaks).

russellhltn wrote:The training does not contradict the handbook.

It certainly does contradict the handbook. The handbook only states Stake Clerks and Assistant Stake Clerks are not to be auditors. The training includes ward clerks and assistant ward clerks.

Gary_Miller wrote:It certainly does contradict the handbook. The handbook only states Stake Clerks and Assistant Stake Clerks are not to be auditors. The training includes ward clerks and assistant ward clerks.

Actually, it doesn't contradict at all. It augments the Handbook by adding an additional potential limitation. Stake presidents receive very specific training from their priesthood leaders on how to handle these types of situations.

mbs6 wrote:Excellent. Thank you for the clarity. Of all the questions raised, the one which gives me the most trouble is whether the Bishop must sign all checks, most especially fast offering checks. I've encountered several auditors and clerks over the years who insist the Bishop must sign all checks. I prefer to have counselors sign the checks once I have the Bishop's approval. The Bishop has enough to do without me inventing requirements for him. Having him sign every check often requires me to interrupt and command his attention toward paperwork when he is busy with ecclesiastical matters.

If you don't "interrupt and command [the bishop's] attention" how can he approve the expenses? He may not have to sign, but he does have to approve the expenses, so there does have to be some sort of interaction with him.

Gary_Miller wrote:However, "We need to remember that policy directions are approved and announced only by the First Presidency. They are not introduced through rumor from one leader or member to another." (Overview of the New Handbooks Elder Dallin H. Oaks).

I would not classify the training material coming from CHQ as "rumor".

The training adds a "should not" to the Handbook's "shall not". It does not approve something the Handbook prohibits.

russellhltn wrote:Not all policy is written in the handbook.

Seeing as how the 2010 handbook is supposed to replace anything in the handbooks that came before (and there's no older handbook to refer to because it should have been destroyed), we may be left in a confusing spot. How can we know if a topic is simply covered outside of the handbook or if its exclusion from the handbook was on purpose, meaning there is not supposed to be a policy about that topic? How do we know if training materials were written before or after the current handbook was published?

Ideally, there would be no conflict between the information contained in the handbook and any other material which comes from any level of church leadership. But when the handbook and any other source are covering the same topic and one of them appears to be different from the other, it's only natural that we would defer to the handbook.

mrrad wrote:How do we know if training materials were written before or after the current handbook was published?

Is that a problem in this case? I can't remember having a problem figuring out the date of a official directive is when I've been able to lay my hands on it - only when someone is reporting what they've read.

russellhltn wrote:Is that a problem in this case?

In this case? I have no idea. My new calling is not an access-to-handbook-one calling. I just thought that the principles we're discussing here, if true, should be applicable to all situations where there's a question of the handbook vs. some other source.

russellhltn wrote:I can't remember having a problem figuring out the date of a official directive is when I've been able to lay my hands on it - only when someone is reporting what they've read.

...and that brings us back on topic. This whole discussion started because someone was following a policy when nobody can find the source of that policy anymore... so that made it difficult to figure out if the policy was outdated or if it never officially existed in the first place. The only evidence we have that it was a policy is someone remembered that it used to be that way.

mrrad wrote:...and that brings us back on topic. This whole discussion started because someone was following a policy when nobody can find the source of that policy anymore... so that made it difficult to figure out if the policy was outdated or if it never officially existed in the first place. The only evidence we have that it was a policy is someone remembered that it used to be that way.

If no one can find it, that's a different story.

But like most threads, this one has gone from the issue of who can sign checks to who can be an auditor? The Handbook or the current training materials for the auditors? Does one take presidence, or do they co-exist?

russellhltn wrote:The Handbook or the current training materials for the auditors? Does one take presidence, or do they co-exist?

The Handbook says 1 and 2 may not be auditors.
The training materials say 3 and 4 may not be auditors.
Relying on both sources, 1, 2, 3, and 4 may not audit.

The stake president would like to have 1 or 2 audit. This does not comply with the Handbook. He requests an exception through his proper priesthood leaders. The First Presidency denies his request. Neither 1 nor 2 audit.

The stake president would like to have 3 or 4 audit. This complies with the Handbook but is contrary to other guidance he has received. He consults with his Area Authority. His priesthood leader explains the reason for the counsel in the training and why it ought to be followed.
1. He agrees, and neither 3 nor 4 audit.
or
2. He explains the reason for his request and makes his case. The AA agrees that this is a valid reason. Either 3 or 4 get to audit, perhaps with certain limitations.

In this example, the stake president will arrive at answer 1 when he understands why the additional information has been presented. Or perhaps the additional information is an official announcement of an upcoming change to the Handbook. Either way, with his priesthood leader, he realizes that the additional guidance he has received is wise counsel and merits following under the circumstances.

In this example, the stake president will arrive at answer 2 by understanding the reason for the additional information, and having counseled with his priesthood leader, who also has extensive experience, and working together to arrive at an acceptable solution. Answer 2 may be temporary. Or it may be that answer 2 is an acceptable answer under the proposed decision of the stake president and with counsel from his leader. It may be that his leader has taken the request even higher and received additional counsel and guidance. There are many variables.

But the Handbook and the training materials coexist. The Handbook takes precedence. And while is may be doubtful wisdom in many cases, It is easier to deviate from the training materials than from the Handbook.

lajackson wrote:And while is may be doubtful wisdom in many cases, It is easier to deviate from the training materials than from the Handbook.

I'd suggest that it is also easier to get new restrictions added to the training material then to the Handbook. (Just ask anyone who has worked with a Condo Homeowners association about the difference between changing "House Rules" and "Bylaws".)

If you have access to the Bishop's office when he isn't there. In our ward, as Finance Clerk, I don't.

mbs6 wrote:I appreciate all the responses and suggestions. I like Gary's suggestion, but I worry about leaving printed checks in any location that's not fully in my control. Our clerk's office is shared with two other wards and gets lots of foot traffic. Isn't there a policy which addresses the leaving of checks unattended?

We also share our office with another ward. Both wards have their own metal filing cabinet with a key. Any checks that are waiting to be signed, or waiting to be picked up by the member, are locked in the filing cabinet.

Just to send this further down the rabbit hole...

When I was first called as a ward clerk, the audits were performed by the high council. It was terrible. Most of the high councilors had never had clerical roles, weren't familiar with auditing procedures, and really didn't know what the expectations of the clerks were.

After the change to CUBS, the stake decided to enlist the help of a few of the more experienced ward clerks and finance clerks to perform the audits. We were never assigned to audit our own wards for obvious reasons. Instead, we were sent to audit other wards, and asked to take a little extra time in wards with new clerks to teach and mentor.

Since changing to this model, the audits have become more efficient, there have been fewer exceptions, and the general consensus has been that the quality of clerical work in the stake has improved dramatically.

At this point, I think that the same thing could be accomplished by former clerks (instead of active clerks), but with the condition that they have experience with CUBS. (In fact, the experience with CUBS I think is why active clerks were chosen at that time).

That may not be much of an epiphany to many stakes, but I just bring it up to say that there can be a certain advantage to having your active clerks performing audits, as long as you're willing to accept the risks that come with that.

Whether or not that's acceptable for the stake to do, well, if there's any question, I'd recommend the stake audit committee chairman ask whomever advises him on audit issues.

Question - Who can sign checks? As a clerk, I have been told that either two of the bishopric or one clerk and one bishopric member. Or can two people on the signature card sign without regard to their title? I fully understand that the Bishop has to approve all expenditures. Just trying to figure out who can sign the checks and where that is referenced. Thanks.

clay@hewson.net wrote:Question - Who can sign checks? As a clerk, I have been told that either two of the bishopric or one clerk and one bishopric member. Or can two people on the signature card sign without regard to their title? I fully understand that the Bishop has to approve all expenditures. Just trying to figure out who can sign the checks and where that is referenced. Thanks.

See the RKATS article Record Expenses and Reimbursements (which quotes quite a bit from HB1 14.6.7). As long as the expense has been approved by the bishop or stake president, it can be signed by any two authorized signers (with, of course, certain exceptions for checks made out to a signer, or for fast-offering payments to family members of a signer).

It's quite common for a bishop or stake president to create a further restriction that one of the signers should be a member of the bishopric or stake presidency. That's certainly his prerogative, but as far as I can tell, the official policy is simply that two authorized signers must sign.

clay@hewson.net wrote:Question - Who can sign checks? As a clerk, I have been told that either two of the bishopric or one clerk and one bishopric member.

That was the instruction in an MLS message sometime in the second half of 2012. I do not have access to MLS and therefore cannot verify the date or the existence of the message. All other instructions, such as in Handbook 1 as aebrown mentioned, permit any two signatories on the signature card to be able to sign.

You could ask for a resend of any MLS messages referrencing check signatures from the Finance Department through the MLS messaging system if the message is still valid.

I've read several times that the Bishop must approve all expenses. Can he approve his own expenses so long as he does not sign the check to himself? I understand that he cannot sign a check for himself, but can he approve his own expense? If not, who can?

jjone389 wrote:I've read several times that the Bishop must approve all expenses. Can he approve his own expenses so long as he does not sign the check to himself? I understand that he cannot sign a check for himself, but can he approve his own expense? If not, who can?

If it's just a regular reimbursement, then yes, the bishop can (and should) approve his own expense.

The major exception is fast offering assistance for the bishop or his family, which must be approved by the stake president. Handbook 1, sections 5.1.2 and 5.2.4 give guidance in this area.