LCR Check approvals

I know these forums aren't monitored by Church leaders, but I'm hoping someone can explain the rationalization of some enforced "rules" since the migration of check printing to LCR.

As a clerk, I (asst. finance clerk) can enter a check without attached receipts and print the paper check. The ward clerk and I can then both sign the check.

However, if I attach any receipts in LCR, the check can't even be printed until authorized by a member of the bishopric. It makes no sense that when documentation is attached, it becomes more difficult to print the check. This discourages the ideal that all expenses have attached documentation. Asst. Finance clerk and ward clerk are both authorized check signers, so why can't that combo authorize a check for printing?

I thought that a member of the bishopric was always supposed to be one of the signers of checks

When I served as clerk, two clerks signing the check would have been an Audit exception. Also, not having the receipts for the expense was also an audit exception. I used to have to regularly remind the bishopric that I was happy to print the check once the receipts were provided (or the "lost receipt" process was followed). But it has been a few years since I served as a clerk or in the bishopric so the requirements may have changed.

I think what you're seeing is more rigorous enforcement of policy. I question if it's proper for two clerks to sign the check. I can't find anything definitive, but General Handbook 34.6.7 says:

Usually the bishop, his counselors, and the clerk assigned to finances are authorized to sign checks for the ward account. An authorized check signer should not sign a check if he is the payee or the fast-offering beneficiary.

Although counselors may be authorized to sign checks, they should not do so unless the stake president or bishop has approved the expenditure.

If you stuck to that list, you wouldn't have two authorized clerks. I realize this is at odds with the Help Center article which lists Ward Clerk and Assistant Ward Clerk as well.

Also, all expenses must be approved by the bishop at some point.

Although I can't find anything now, that is my memory from the past - that you couldn't have two clerks signing checks. The developers don't make up the "business rules" for LCR. It's handed down to them by the same people who write the policy.

kd7mha wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 12:41 pm I thought that a member of the bishopric was always supposed to be one of the signers of checks

That is correct. The Help Center article, Record Expenses and Reimbursements, states: "Two authorized leaders must approve each expense; one of them must be a member of the stake presidency or bishopric." Having two clerks sign a check is not proper procedure. LCR enforces this requirement.

daveywest wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 12:34 pmHowever, if I attach any receipts in LCR, the check can't even be printed until authorized by a member of the bishopric. It makes no sense that when documentation is attached, it becomes more difficult to print the check. This discourages the ideal that all expenses have attached documentation.

Others have addressed whether it appropriate to have two clerks sign a check. As for needing the receipts to be approved before printing the check, I think the idea is that if the receipts are online then they may not be printed at all so the documentation needs to be reviewed and approved before printing. And if they are approved online then the check signers do not need to review the documentation. The problem here is that there isn't anything on the check itself to indicate that the documentation was already approved so the signers needs to know or verify online that the documentation was approved. It would be nice if it listed the approvers on the check stub.

Since that workflow isn't always convenient especially for checks that are needed quickly, I tend to print the checks without uploading documentation, attach the physical documentation to the check for the signers to review and then upload the documentation after the check is signed so the documentation is available online for the audit.

jdessley, two questions about your post:
1) For me, the link you provide simply re-directs to this forum post, perhaps you copy/pasted wrong. This should be the correct link for Record Expenses and Reimbursements
2) I thought that expense approval was technically different than check signing? And since approval can (and per the instructions, should) occur before the expense in incurred, couldn't the check payment simply be signed by two authorized clerks, when they see the expense has already been approved?
We always have a member of the Bishopric be one of the check signers, but now I'm wondering if this is always necessary or just tradition.

So, I feel like this got off-track a bit from the original intent. Lots of discussion about who is allowed to sign the checks -- and I agree that at least one needs to be a Bishopric member. However, I think the main point that OP was making is still valid and is an issue. I came to the forum today to look for someone talking about exactly this or ask it myself.

The issue is that if we go to electronic receipts -- like they WANT us to do -- it actually makes it MORE difficult to just print checks.

Under the old system -- when using just paper receipts -- the process goes like this for us very often:
1. A clerk enters the expense and uploads NO receipts.
2. The same clerk prints the check for that.
3. He leaves it in the clerk's office (with the reimbursement request and receipts) for the Bishop to sign later when he has a moment.

Under the new system -- when uploading digital receipts -- the process goes like this:
1. A clerk enters the expense and uploads the requested receipts.
2. The clerk is now stuck because he isn't allowed to even print those checks until someone else logs into LCR and approves the expenses by reviewing the digital receipts.
3. The clerk sits around waiting for a Bishopric member to have a moment to sign in and approve them.
4. The clerk can then finally start to print the checks for that day and prints them.
5. The clerk sits around again waiting for a Bishopric member to have a moment to sign the check.

In other words, the more we move to the better "digital receipts" system that is being requested, the longer and more difficult it is to actually gets checks written.

I say this as a 1st Counselor sitting in the clerk's office on a Monday morning right now (after taking off from work) -- waiting for our Bishop (who is also at work) to have a chance to log into his account and approve things -- so that I can finally print the checks -- which I will then leave here in the clerk's office for him to come by later and pick up and sign. (Because, yesterday, the Finance section of LCR was overloaded and unusable for our entire block and 30+ minutes after so we had to abandon our attempts to write checks yesterday.) But note that this problem still occurs even on a Sunday when everyone is around.

It's just a pain that it is more difficult to print checks when you do it the "right" way by uploading digital receipts.

FWIW - We here in the UK did away with cheques a few years ago. All reimbursements are carried out by EFT (Electronic Funds Transfer). This has eliminated getting two signatories together in the same place at the same time.

Is this option not available in the US?

jgoggan wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 8:14 am So, I feel like this got off-track a bit from the original intent. Lots of discussion about who is allowed to sign the checks -- and I agree that at least one needs to be a Bishopric member. However, I think the main point that OP was making is still valid and is an issue. I came to the forum today to look for someone talking about exactly this or ask it myself.

jgoggan wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 8:14 am It's just a pain that it is more difficult to print checks when you do it the "right" way by uploading digital receipts.

I don't know of any statement anywhere that says using physical receipts with checks is discouraged or that uploading receipts is preferred. From a practical standpoint having the receipts online makes it easier to research payments (if there is a question of whether a reimbursement was actually paid for instance) and for audits (the auditor can review documentation before holding the audit meeting making things go quicker for everyone). Both of these benefits can be gained by uploading the receipts after printing the check as I indicated in my post previous in this thread.

Of course, as Biggles indicates, if you get people to set up for EFT that's even better. But unfortunately that doesn't work for most Fast Offerings checks since in the US EFT is only available for payments to members.

“Of course, as Biggles indicates, if you get people to set up for EFT that's even better. But unfortunately that doesn't work for most Fast Offerings checks since in the US EFT is only available for payments to members.”

To clarify - No payments are made by cheques, we no longer have any method to issue cheques. As long as we have the bank account details of the third party, then we can pay Fast Offerings. We are encouraged not to pay any funds directly to the FO beneficiary, but directly to the organisation concerned. So far this hasn’t presented any difficulties.

Biggles wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 8:34 am Is this option not available in the US?

Only to reimburse members and only if the member has set their account up for EFT.

I don't think there's any way to eliminate paper checks for things like rent payments (welfare assistance).

Obviously the UK system is quite different.

If I recall correctly, some years ago, UK law changed and banks were no longer required to accept paper checks as legal tender (or were allowed to charge extra fees to handle them). I suspect that is what moved the entire country away from paper checks and the church had to accommodate the change.

In the UK paper cheques are still widely available and used, but I’m guessing that the church decided to go the paperless route as electronic banking is far more efficient and far less wasteful. Banks still issue cheque books, because there are still circumstances that require the use of cheques. We no longer have to print out financial statements as they are all online now. In the last couple of years I think I have only written one paper cheque, as almost all of my transactions are done electronically. The push in the UK, is to go paperless as much as possible.

Biggles wrote: In the UK

You (U.K.) are ahead of us (U.S.) is this regard.

Before electronic contributions became available a General Authority from Europe was asked to move to Church headquarters. When he asked his new bishop for bank information to donate, he learned that he would have to open a bank account and order checks so that he could pay his tithing. He had not written a check in Europe for many years. I believe he was quite influential in getting online donations going in the U.S. It was fun to visit with him about it when he presided at our stake conference.

Many businesses here only accept paper checks. It is getting better, but almost all Fast Offering expenses must be completed by check.

lajackson wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 12:25 pm Many businesses here only accept paper checks.

On the other hand, sometimes businesses even in the USA request electronic reimbursements instead of checks, and we have to twist their arm to take a check, since the Church system in the USA doesn't support electronic reimbursements for non-members. We're kind of in limbo between two systems, allowing every business to have their own preference. I hope we no longer have to use paper checks in 5–10 years, but we'll see…

eblood66 wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 9:58 am I don't know of any statement anywhere that says using physical receipts with checks is discouraged or that uploading receipts is preferred.

Interesting -- I assumed it was a National thing. We have been pushed by our Stake and from Auditors for the past several audits to move to digital receipts only as much as possible. I didn't realize that this might only be some local/Stake/Area directive?

Of course, as Biggles indicates, if you get people to set up for EFT that's even better. But unfortunately that doesn't work for most Fast Offerings checks since in the US EFT is only available for payments to members.

Exactly. The situation I was referring to was literally all Fast Offering checks.

I did see your suggestion about printing checks and then adding them later. And, sure, that works as a work-around. But I don't think it is a good long-term solution (or even what was intended in the design of the system). But, I'll likely do this myself in the future should the same situation arise (where I'm at the church trying to print checks on my own without another member present).

Thanks.

Biggles wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:35 amTo clarify - No payments are made by cheques, we no longer have any method to issue cheques. As long as we have the bank account details of the third party, then we can pay Fast Offerings. We are encouraged not to pay any funds directly to the FO beneficiary, but directly to the organisation concerned. So far this hasn’t presented any difficulties.

Yes, this would be almost impossible in the USA currently. Fast Offering checks often go to landlords, power companies, city governments, and so on -- NONE of which provide any way of paying electronically. All would require checks, unfortunately. We've always been behind here in the USA in those regards -- from electronic payments to credit card processing, and so on. Heck, we still have lots of places where you can't tap-to-pay with a credit card -- and even some that can't read chips yet and you have to SWIPE your credit card...

jgoggan wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 12:40 pmInteresting -- I assumed it was a National thing. We have been pushed by our Stake and from Auditors for the past several audits to move to digital receipts only as much as possible. I didn't realize that this might only be some local/Stake/Area directive?

I expect it is a Stake thing although it might be the Area. As a stake clerk I can certainly see why the stake would prefer it. It provides better visibility for the stake clerk to review things and head off problems (i.e. provide training) early and it can make audits smoother.

But as you've stated, the system isn't really designed for quick check handling when using only electronic documentation. It's worked fine for me when I receive electronic documentation in the first place. I can create the expense at home, get it approved and then only go to print the check when it's all ready. But, given the current system, when given a fast offering expense bill which needs to be paid immediately, physical documents are definitely the way to go.

It wouldn't hurt to submit feedback on this issue outlining your stake's push for online documentation and the friction involved in the current system. It might not change anything right away but it might be considered for future changes.

Agreed -- but it still just feels really odd to me to go "Oh, you SAY that you have a paper receipt? Then go ahead and print a check whenever you want. I'll trust you on that." -- but then go "Oh, you've actually UPLOADED a receipt to PROVE that you have it? Then, sorry, you'll have to wait until someone else confirms it first before you can print a check. I just don't trust that you've actually got it, I guess."

Just seems very backwards to me. Oh well...

There have been many times that I have been asked to print a check with the expectation and promise that a paid receipt would be returned to me for my files and the audit. We absolutely need the ability to print checks before receipts are available. I believe that is the use case. The two signatures on the cancelled check image are equivalent to two online approvals. We all know and expect that the auditor will ask to see the receipts.

We absolutely need the ability to print checks before receipts are available

Agreed, and Bishops are aware of those situations and assuredly are careful in verifying any check amount prior to printing. I think we may sometimes conflate "expense approval" with "receipt verification". If an online receipt is uploaded, then to me this definitely makes sense to verify the e-receipt as part of the check printing process. But if no e-receipt exists, then the "expense approval" may occur, with or without a physical receipt in-hand. Obviously the Bishop is ultimately responsible for ensuring the paper receipt is supplied either before or after check printing, and church audits help ensure adherence.