How to add FO recipient from another unit?

Our district president asked our several branches to share one large medical expense. I am not sure how in MLS to add a FO recipient from another unit, if the option is greyed out?

You might want to contact the District Clerk. He's responsible for training branch clerks. He'd also be a good one to figure out how to make this work (or break the news that it can't).

russellhltn wrote:You might want to contact the District Clerk. He's responsible for training branch clerks. He'd also be a good one to figure out how to make this work (or break the news that it can't).

I am the district clerk

rchomskis wrote:I am the district clerk

In that case you may want to review Handbook 1: 5.1.2 "Medical Expenses That Exceed Authorized Amounts".

You can try and contact support, but I have my doubts. I see no provision in the Handbook for spreading the payment across multiple units. Nor is there a need to unless it's an attempt to keep things under the radar that perhaps should be on the radar.

Good luck with your chat with the District President.

russellhltn wrote:

rchomskis wrote:I am the district clerk

In that case you may want to review Handbook 1: 5.1.2 "Medical Expenses That Exceed Authorized Amounts".

You can try and contact support, but I have my doubts. I see no provision in the Handbook for spreading the payment across multiple units. Nor is there a need to unless it's an attempt to keep things under the radar that perhaps should be on the radar.

Good luck with your chat with the District President.

Actually authorisation came from our mission president, so now the branches try to figure out this "greyed out" issue. oh, and the overall medical expense is still within the limits of authorised medical expenses for district president (according to Handbook 1 5.1.2), but too large for one branch to handle, hence the split

rchomskis wrote:

russellhltn wrote:oh, and the overall medical expense is still within the limits of authorised medical expenses for district president (according to Handbook 1 5.1.2), but too large for one branch to handle, hence the split

In that case, I'd contact support and ask them how that should be done.

That sounds like a clear violation of the intent of the policy. We see that in accounting as well, when folks try to circumvent corporate policy by splitting expenses. Bad news.

drepouille wrote:That sounds like a clear violation of the intent of the policy. We see that in accounting as well, when folks try to circumvent corporate policy by splitting expenses. Bad news.

never heard of the policy restricting units to share the burden

As I see it, the underlying problem is that the branch president has one limit and the district president has a higher limit.

The question is, what is the procedure when a payment exceeds the branch's amount but is within the district's amount?

The way the Handbook is written, it sounds like it's still done by the one unit, but I don't know how the approval process is handled. Is it just a pop-up reminder, or does it refuse until something else is done?

russellhltn wrote:As I see it, the underlying problem is that the branch president has one limit and the district president has a higher limit.

The question is, what is the procedure when a payment exceeds the branch's amount but is within the district's amount?

The way the Handbook is written, it sounds like it's still done by the one unit, but I don't know how the approval process is handled. Is it just a pop-up reminder, or does it refuse until something else is done?

the underlying problem here is to pay the expense ASAP, instead of Area Presidency approved way, which involves loads of approval paperwork. I guess our MLS is not prepared to handle such time-sensitive/urgent exeptions... and contacting GSC is the only way to solve this...

russellhltn wrote:The way the Handbook is written, it sounds like it's still done by the one unit, but I don't know how the approval process is handled. Is it just a pop-up reminder, or does it refuse until something else is done?

A similar question came up in this thread. lajackson indicated that the ward would pay the expense. That really is the only thing that makes sense. Spliting an expense up just makes the accounting and auditing more obscure.

I haven't done an large medical expense myself but I seem to remember that it just does a popup reminding you of the limit. I think the approval should be written and included with the documentation. It seems like there may be a related audit question as well but I'm not sure about that.

rchomskis wrote:never heard of the policy restricting units to share the burden

The thing is that there is no 'burden' on individual units. FO does not come out of local unit funds, it comes from the general church FO fund. Local FO go to the same place. And the limit is not per-unit, it's per recipient. So spreading the expense over multiple units just makes it difficult to make sure the actual expense is within limits for the district and has appropriate approval.

If the branch with the recipient can't actually cut the necessary check then I'd check with local unit support on how to proceed.

rchomskis wrote:Our district president asked our several branches to share one large medical expense. I am not sure how in MLS to add a FO recipient from another unit, if the option is greyed out?

As eblood66 said (typing more quickly than me), since the expenditure is within the limits of the district president and also has been approved by the mission president, the only thing left to do is for the branch in question to pay the expense. There is no need to split the expense, since all Fast Offering funds expended are reimbursed to the unit.

The error message you see in MLS should be just a warning to make sure the approvals have been given. The branch should be able to continue through it to issue the check (or make the payment). (I was not able to see the image, sorry.)

lajackson wrote:

rchomskis wrote:Our district president asked our several branches to share one large medical expense. I am not sure how in MLS to add a FO recipient from another unit, if the option is greyed out?

As eblood66 said (typing more quickly than me), since the expenditure is within the limits of the district president and also has been approved by the mission president, the only thing left to do is for the branch in question to pay the expense. There is no need to split the expense, since all Fast Offering funds expended are reimbursed to the unit.

The error message you see in MLS should be just a warning to make sure the approvals have been given. The branch should be able to continue through it to issue the check (or make the payment). (I was not able to see the image, sorry.)

it is not an error window, it is the "add recipient" window. also, the mission president advised to split the expense between branches, so the branches now need to figure out how to do this. since I am the district clerk, I need to teach local clreks how to do this in MLS. Leaving my actual case aside, why then MLS still have the option to indicate the FO recipient as from another unit, but it is greyed out? how do I activate the option in MLS!?

rchomskis wrote:the mission president advised to split the expense between branches

It would take a call to support to confirm this, but that advice seems to be questionable. The question might have to be kicked back to whoever suggested that.

rchomskis wrote:

drepouille wrote:That sounds like a clear violation of the intent of the policy. We see that in accounting as well, when folks try to circumvent corporate policy by splitting expenses. Bad news.

never heard of the policy restricting units to share the burden

This indicates that the leaders misunderstand the nature of the Fast Offering fund. There is only one. Each unit does not have its own Fast Offering fund. It is not like the budget or Other:AMFA funds. When you deposit into the Fast Offering fund, the amount is immediately swept into the general fund. When you write a check from the Fast Offering fund, the amount is transferred from the general fund. It simply makes no sense to "share the burden" among units.

drepouille wrote:It simply makes no sense to "share the burden" among units.

The only reason to attempt to do that is to circumvent some kind of limitation. But I find that idea highly suspect.

russellhltn wrote:

drepouille wrote:It simply makes no sense to "share the burden" among units.

The only reason to attempt to do that is to circumvent some kind of limitation. But I find that idea highly suspect.

I believe that the well-meaning mission president actually thinks that the branches are sharing the burden of this Fast Offering expense, which as has been explained is not true at all. There is no circumvention in this case because all of the proper approvals have been obtained.

This is simply a case of a desire to follow the instructions from the mission president that appear to have been based on inadequate or old information. What has been asked here is something that may have been done 30 or 40 years ago as a practical matter, but which is no longer necessary today.

I would suggest a call to Local Unit Support asking them if it is possible for MLS to do what the mission president has requested. It would be an interesting call.