Self Reimbursement on Expenses

When you go to enter a reimbursement for yourself from fast offerings the system says the person reimbursed should not be one of the submitter/authorizers. I completely understand this from a safety standpoint. Can I suggest an enhancement?

I’m a transient bishop which means I end up using fast offering funds to pay for gas, food, lodging, clothing, etc for non-members and for members whose records are in none of our local wards. This means I am regularly out of pocket these costs and need to request reimbursement. On top of that, I have my regular Sunday responsibilities which makes it difficult for me to find time to fill out all the paperwork to process the reimbursement manually, the old fashioned way. It is significantly easier for me to take a picture of the expense and submit it online with the proper information because I can do it right then in the moment.

Can we please make it possible for bishops to be the submitters for their own reimbursements and then require that two different authorizers approve the expense? This will make it easier for bishops in my position and still have the security of having two other people reviewing and authorizing the expense.

You'll need to either submit feedback using the Feedback link on LCR or talk to your Stake President and ask him to pass the request up his priesthood leadership line. The forums are just user-to-user help and no decision makers frequent the forums.

However, I would suggest just emailing the picture of the expense to your clerk. Then he can enter the expense and a counselor can approve. Sending an email with the picture should be even simpler for you than logging in to LCR and uploading it. As a clerk, that's certainly what I'd tell my bishop.

I'll admit, though, that I wish it did work as you suggest. It would make it easier when I need to reimbursement myself. Nobody else in my ward regularly enters expenses so it's a pain to have to sit down with someone else, have them log in and then walk them through the process.

Thanks. Will do.

kelosh wrote:When you go to enter a reimbursement for yourself from fast offerings the system says the person reimbursed should not be one of the submitter/authorizers. I completely understand this from a safety standpoint. Can I suggest an enhancement?

I’m a transient bishop which means I end up using fast offering funds to pay for gas, food, lodging, clothing, etc for non-members and for members whose records are in none of our local wards. This means I am regularly out of pocket these costs and need to request reimbursement. On top of that, I have my regular Sunday responsibilities which makes it difficult for me to find time to fill out all the paperwork to process the reimbursement manually, the old fashioned way. It is significantly easier for me to take a picture of the expense and submit it online with the proper information because I can do it right then in the moment.

Can we please make it possible for bishops to be the submitters for their own reimbursements and then require that two different authorizers approve the expense? This will make it easier for bishops in my position and still have the security of having two other people reviewing and authorizing the expense.

Good suggestion. As a ward clerk, I ran into this in trying to reimburse myself. If I could setup the reimbursement but still have it require two authorizations, it would speed it up as the bishopric counselors aren't as familiar with the first step in the process (getting the images setup, etc).

The submitter can carry out the process, even if they are the beneficiary. The system does give a notice that this isn’t possible, but in fact it does allow it. However, the system won’t allow you to actually authorise your own submission!

As a ward clerk, in the UK, I have done this for myself several times. Therefore the two other authorisers are still required!

Biggles wrote:The submitter can carry out the process, even if they are the beneficiary. The system does give a notice that this isn’t possible, but in fact it does allow it. However, the system won’t allow you to actually authorise your own submission!

As a ward clerk, in the UK, I have done this for myself several times. Therefore the two other authorisers are still required!

Ahh! I thought the message was telling me I couldn't do it. I'll try it next time. Thanks!

Biggles wrote:The submitter can carry out the process, even if they are the beneficiary. The system does give a notice that this isn’t possible, but in fact it does allow it. However, the system won’t allow you to actually authorise your own submission!

That's new then (or things work differently in the UK). I assumed that would be the case but when I went ahead and submitted a reimbursement for myself and ignored the warning, it processed after only one other person authorized it. But this was during the beta test so perhaps it's been changed.

chriswoodut is right. Ward Clerks and others can submit expense requests for their own expenses. I've done it.

It definitely works, but it feels weird clicking past that warning. I would like it better if we also had the ability to access a portal like the auxiliary presidencies (I know we're not supposed to call them that but I don't know of a replacement term) where they can enter the expense then have two other authorized individuals actually do the approval.

huyettindustries wrote: Thu Feb 15, 2024 6:48 pm It definitely works, but it feels weird clicking past that warning. I would like it better if we also had the ability to access a portal like the auxiliary presidencies (I know we're not supposed to call them that but I don't know of a replacement term) where they can enter the expense then have two other authorized individuals actually do the approval.

I am also a ward clerk, and email any expenses I have with the documentation to a bishopric member for him to enter into the system. From an audit standpoint, we feel this is much better.

ps the replacement term is organizations (and quorum).

In the U.S. and Canada, a leader with finance edit permissions can enter an expense payment directly into LCRF but they should not do so for themselves unless the payment instrument is a paper check. There is no warning if the payment instrument is a paper check. If the payment instrument is an EFT payment it also shows the warning but does not prevent the processing and he would be the first approval. The requirement is the payee cannot give one of the approvals. With a paper check two other authorized signers on the check meet the requirement for the two approvals. As garystroble mentioned, it is better to give or send the receipts and payment information to another leader with finance edit permissions to enter the expense payment into LCRF. An auditor on his/her toes should notice if the payee is one of the approvals. And if so, it would/should be an audit exception.

Note: I have tested this periodically after submitting feedback a few years back about the system issue allowing a payee to enter the payment into LCRF for both payment instrument types. Each time the payment went through awaiting the second approval. I stopped the payment before the second approval by reviewing, rejecting, and then deleting the payment.

huyettindustries wrote: Thu Feb 15, 2024 6:48 pm It definitely works, but it feels weird clicking past that warning. I would like it better if we also had the ability to access a portal like the auxiliary presidencies (I know we're not supposed to call them that but I don't know of a replacement term) where they can enter the expense then have two other authorized individuals actually do the approval.

If you use the Expense Request in the Member Tools app then it works that way and there shouldn't be a warning. If you use LCR and get a warning, stop, and DO NOT bypass it. if you bypass the warning you'll almost surely get an audit exception.