Help with Fast Offering Expenses without Recipients

Greetings fellow clerkers,

I have an issue in my ward where I continue to get the urgent task list error "A fast offering expense without a fast offering recipient exits".

I thought that this simply referred to one particular expense, so I consulted with the Bishop and added the most likely recipient (because he couldn't remember 2 years ago).

I sent this through but the error was still there. I then realized that there are 50 of these errors.
They all appear to be charges from LDS Family Services. It looks like they have charged our ward over 50 times in the last 2 years without ever adding who the recipient is.

We are getting audited tomorrow due to a new Bishop being called yesterday. Is there any way I can fix these errors or find out who they should all be attributed to?

I would appreciate any advice or links to previous discussions on this same topic.

jasondavie wrote:I sent this through but the error was still there. I then realized that there are 50 of these errors.

They all appear to be charges from LDS Family Services. It looks like they have charged our ward over 50 times in the last 2 years without ever adding who the recipient is.

If these were automatic charges, then each one should have an IROP that you can view in the Financial Statements area of MLS. I haven't personally seen such IROPs, but I would think that they would mention the name of the person who received the assistance. You could then edit the expense to add the recipient. That's tedious to do 50 times, but the recipient must be specified for each expense.

Thanks for the reply. I looked through all of the IROPs and unfortunately did not find any from LDSFS. Believe me, I would be happy to do it 50 times just to get rid of the annoying urgent task list errors!

I finally worked out the solution....

I created a new Fast Offering Recipient name of LDS Family Services Recipient. I created them as a "not a member/miscellaneous" type of recipient.

I then went through all of the outstanding expenses attributed to LDS Family Services and entered the new recipient name and hit save and then entered the reason for the adjustment as "Entering Confidential Recipient of LDSFS Services".

I did this 50 times so the urgent task list errors would disappear. Good times.

I called up LDSFS directly and they mentioned using the "not a member/miscellaneous" type of recipient so that the services could remain confidential rather than the name being read by every clerk and accountant which deals with church records. They said that only LDSFS and Bishop's of wards know who the recipients are. It's interesting that there is absolutely NO training in how to do this anywhere online, in the handbook or even on the clerk forum that I could find.

Lucky I can't accept defeat!

I wish you hadn't done that. First, you've falsified the records by creating a fictitious person for the purpose of circumventing the requirement to include the FO recipient. Second, the name of the assisted member shows up in the Consolidated Unit Financial Statement (CUFS). Part of what the bishop and clerk should be looking at when they review the CUFS every month is making certain those type of entries were authorized, and in the amount / frequency the bishop had authorized. Third, the amount of "medical" payments from Fast Offerings is limited without stake presidency approval. By aggregating all of these types of medical payments into a single name, you've eliminated the ability to break down the amount of assistance per person. Fourth, if I as an auditor reviewed this type of electronic payment and saw that the fast offering recipient was identified like this, I'd mark it as an exception, so you haven't gained anything except for the urgent message going away. Finally, the type of confidentiality you are thinking about doesn't apply here. If the ward is going to be paying for something - anything - it needs to have accurate records. Those who are tasked with maintaining and overseeing those records are already required to maintain the utmost confidentiality. Whether it is a payment for medical services (including counseling) or payment for rent, excluding the name of the recipient is not an option. In order for LDSFS to bill the ward, they must have gained the authorization from the bishop, and in order for them to even speak to the bishop, LDSFS has the patient sign an authorization of release of confidential information.

Thanks for your thoughts.
I spoke to our stake clerk and our stake auditors.
Unfortunately they did not have a clue what to do so I found a solution as best I could.
I don't think our stake is the only one either. As you'll see above, some confusion exists. Aebrown thought there would be an IROP for these charges.
Perhaps these instructions could be clearly taught to clerks and published somewhere???
The same errors have been on our computer for 2 years and I'm the first one (including auditors) who has ever done anything about it. Obviously our Bishop didn't receive the training either. He was unaware who the recipients for each charge were 2 years ago. No one has the time to keep track of these things perfectly and also work full time.
Again, there are some obvious training issues in the church when it comes to comprehensive clerk training!
Aaaah, the joys of learning through experience and mistakes in a voluntary capacity as a clerk with no training provided

I have a similar issue. Although I don't have 50 of them, it is still frustrating. In my case, I know the recipient and have added it. However, each time, the system deletes it and the "urgent task" notification returns. I thought the points made by allenjpl were valid, but some instruction as to correctly handling the problem would have been even more helpful.

tybrink wrote:I thought the points made by allenjpl were valid, but some instruction as to correctly handling the problem would have been even more helpful.

When the system doesn't work the way it is supposed to then you are left only with the option of calling LUS for their help.

jasondavie wrote:No one has the time to keep track of these things perfectly and also work full time.

Sounds like you need a couple of assistant clerks!