Signature required for reimbursement form?

Just a quick question from a new clerk.

For the reimbursement form specifically (our ward one that a leader would attach their receipts to), is it alright for any member of the Bishopric (Bishop, 1st/2nd Counselor) to sign the form before I go and make the check? I was sure that it was okay as our form says Bishopric authorization on the line but reading some other forms here it says Bishop only. It is my understanding that as long as the Bishop signs the expense form generated from MLS once I write the check, then everything should be fine as he has given the approval.

Appreciate the help. Just trying to organize things better so the leaders are giving the forms to a member of the Bishopric rather than myself so I'm not trying to chase down the Bishop(ric) to get that first approval, which I want to have rather than getting it after which has been the case here and in other areas.

19nazzy wrote:Just a quick question from a new clerk.

For the reimbursement form specifically (our ward one that a leader would attach their receipts to), is it alright for any member of the Bishopric (Bishop, 1st/2nd Counselor) to sign the form before I go and make the check? I was sure that it was okay as our form says Bishopric authorization on the line but reading some other forms here it says Bishop only. It is my understanding that as long as the Bishop signs the expense form generated from MLS once I write the check, then everything should be fine as he has given the approval.

Appreciate the help. Just trying to organize things better so the leaders are giving the forms to a member of the Bishopric rather than myself so I'm not trying to chase down the Bishop(ric) to get that first approval, which I want to have rather than getting it after which has been the case here and in other areas.

The ward audit instructions say (in step 25):

All expenditures are approved by the bishop. See Church Handbook of Instructions: Book 1, 157, 159.

The lesson Handling Church Expenses says (on slide 15):

The bishop’s signature on the authorization form indicates that he approves of the expense. Never pay an expense that has not been approved by the bishop.

So it is quite clear that only the bishop (or branch president or stake/district president) can authorize the expense. As a practical matter, bishops are not always available at the moment checks need to be written, so most units that I have been involved with will often prepare some checks prior to the bishop signing the form, as long as he approves the expense before it is actually delivered. That seems to meet the requirements.

So what happens when the Bishop is out of town?

Alan_Brown wrote:The ward audit instructions say (in step 25):


The lesson Handling Church Expenses says (on slide 15):


So it is quite clear that only the bishop (or branch president or stake/district president) can authorize the expense. As a practical matter, bishops are not always available at the moment checks need to be written, so most units that I have been involved with will often prepare some checks prior to the bishop signing the form, as long as he approves the expense before it is actually delivered. That seems to meet the requirements.

I appreciate the quick response, thanks.

RussellHltn wrote:So what happens when the Bishop is out of town?

In my experience, if checks need to be written when the bishop is out of town, a counselor approves the expense so that the expense can be paid, but the counselor does not sign the approval form on behalf of the bishop. That must be done by the bishop when he returns.

Although the lesson Handling Church Expenses specifies that the bishop must sign the approval form before the check can be paid, the audit instructions simply state that the bishop must approve the expense. So when my bishops and stake president have been out of town, they are comfortable with expenses being paid as long as they have the opportunity to review and sign the form when they return.

I have never had an auditor question this, since this practice complies completely with the audit instructions.

Just to kinda go along with this, is a normal turn around time for a reimbursement the next Sunday?

19nazzy wrote:Just to kinda go along with this, is a normal turn around time for a reimbursement the next Sunday?

For member reimbursements, yes, that's what I target for. Of course, sometimes fast offering expenses have to be processed sooner, depending on the situation.

Mikerowaved wrote:Of course, sometimes fast offering expenses have to be processed sooner, depending on the situation.

I remember when MLS came out that there was quite a cry because it printed the check as opposed to recording the information after the fact (like FIS did). The Bishop could no longer just write and check, and track down a cosigner at home. If the Bishop wasn't that computer savvy, he had to wait until he could get someone to come down to the ward to do it.

Funny thing - once the word got out, the "emergencies" started showing up sooner. It's a rare case indeed that the member doesn't know they are in financial trouble many days if not weeks ahead of time.

RussellHltn wrote:So what happens when the Bishop is out of town?

The first counselor is in charge and can authorize expenditures within budget and Handbook guidelines. He consults with the stake president if he has a question that will not wait for the bishop's return, especially in the area of fast offerings.

Often, the bishop will have met with the counselor and they will know what expenses need to be paid while the bishop is absent. The counselor will be able to authorize those payments. If something new or unusual turns up, especially with regard to welfare needs, the counselor calls the stake president.

In most of our units, when the counselor signs the payment paperwork, it is saved for the bishop to review and initial/sign upon his return. This keeps the auditors happy. But, in the absence of the bishop, the first counselor can do it.

lajackson wrote:The first counselor is in charge and can authorize expenditures within budget and Handbook guidelines. He consults with the stake president if he has a question that will not wait for the bishop's return, especially in the area of fast offerings.

Often, the bishop will have met with the counselor and they will know what expenses need to be paid while the bishop is absent. The counselor will be able to authorize those payments. If something new or unusual turns up, especially with regard to welfare needs, the counselor calls the stake president.

In most of our units, when the counselor signs the payment paperwork, it is saved for the bishop to review and initial/sign upon his return. This keeps the auditors happy. But, in the absence of the bishop, the first counselor can do it.

I hate to disagree, but the counselor cannot authorize expenditures. The bishop is the only one that can authorize expenditures at the ward level. That is made abundantly clear in training lessons, the handbook, and the audit forms. Nowhere is there any provision for the first counselor to authorize expenditures. In the absense of the bishop, a counselor can give provisional authorization so that the checks can be written, but ultimately the bishop must personally give his signature authorizing the expense.

I have already quoted documents that support this. If you have documentation to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

Alan_Brown wrote:...the counselor cannot authorize expenditures.

This is correct. See CHI, book 1, p 157, Managing Stake and Ward Checking Accounts.

Alan_Brown wrote:I hate to disagree, but the counselor cannot authorize expenditures. The bishop is the only one that can authorize expenditures at the ward level.

Ok. When he gets back in a few months, we'll have him do it. [grin]

I forget sometimes that it is not normal to live in an area where the first counselor is, in fact, acting as the bishop while the bishop is away for a lengthy amount of time. But, we deal with this every day in five of our wards. During those absences, if the handbook does not say the bishop may not delegate this responsibility, the first counselor can do it in this stake. (CHI 13)

That pretty much rules out performing weddings and holding disciplinary councils. I don't recall anything else right now that the counselor cannot do.

You are absolutely correct, though, that the principle is that the bishop is the one who authorizes all expenses. Barring an exceptional situation such as ours, the bishop needs to sign the forms.

I don't want to get into a discussion of policy any further than has already been done. But I do want to explain my understanding of authorizing an expenditure. In the reference to the CHI I gave it does not say how the approval is to be given. I have had a previous stake president interpret the CHI instruction to mean that while a bishop was out of town he could authorize the expenditure by phone and then sign the appropriate documentation after returning. The counselor signed in his place with an appropriate notation made on the request for reimbursement. The bishop then added his signature to the appropriate documents upon his return.

The audit checklist item 25 states:

All expenditures are approved by the Bishop.
See Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1, 157, 159.

As an auditor I look for any indication that the bishop approved the expenditure before the disbursement. A notation of explanation and the bishop's signature, even after the fact, is sufficient to me to show that the bishop approved the expenditure before the disbursement was made.

I have not come across the situation where the bishop was gone for an extended period of time. But I would suppose that if the stake president establishes or approves procedures to be followed while the bishop is absent, that would be appropriate since he is the next level of financial responsibility for unit funds.

19nazzy wrote:Just to kinda go along with this, is a normal turn around time for a reimbursement the next Sunday?

The following Sunday seems appropriate, although I might suggest you try to take into consideration the needs of the individuals receiving disbursements. For instance, we have a lot of student (ie, low income) families in our ward. If we receive a reimbursement request for $75, we understand that's a lot of money for some of these families and try to get the reimbursement to them that same day. I guess I just mean to say that the clerk's response time shouldn't put a family in financial strains if it can be avoided.