Tech Forum Archive

Audit - two authorized approvals

16 postsstarted by ceddings 6,438 viewsoriginal topic

ceddings
New Member
#1
Hello
I am a stake auditor, auditing a ward. I am confused in reading the audit question:

Does the payment have two authorized approvals and proper support documents that match the Church financial system?

The unit has uploaded receipts and I can see the bishop's automated approval has taken place. Why is the audit system asking if their are two authorized approvals? That is what the LUFAS is set up to do, is it not? It seems like this question should only be focused on whether the support matches the payment. I shouldn't be looking for two authorized approvals - there is no where to look. But the first question #8 indicates the system has already found the bishop's automated support so I should be able to assume the necessary approvals have taken place.

Thanks!
russellhltn
Community Administrator
#2
Can you see who uploaded it? I believe LCR counts that as an approval.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
eblood66
Senior Member
#3
If the expense is a electronic reimbursement or a check with attached documentation I believe that LUFAS will automatically check for the two approvers. But for a printed check without electronic documentation you should check to make sure there are two different signatures on the check. LUFAS has no way of checking that automatically.
KarStly
New Member
#4
As an auditor, I have encountered the same issue. During the most recent audit that I conducted, I had to ask the bishop to look in his own electronic records to show which two members of the bishopric had approved the reimbursement. As previously mentioned, LUFAS will let you know automatically that the bishop has approved the transaction. But I could find no way to view additional details without asking for access to other records.
jms238
New Member
#5
I am going to +1 this question. LUFAS does not show the approval workflow. As I have not been a clerk since electronic reimbursements were deployed I can only assume that the workflow requires two approvals prior to dispersing payment, but cannot confirm. I am not marking these as exceptions, but will review a few with the clerks when I execute the audits.
cdfife
New Member
#6
I am a stake auditor and have the same question as jms238 and others. I wish there was a simple 3-minute video training on this topic as I was also a clerk 10+ years ago before e-reimbursements! I likewise don't flag when the same person is listed as the submitter and approver. I simply make sure to instruct wards to not have the Bishop be the submitter as he's always an approver. Have a counselor or clerk submit a payment expense. But training would be nice :)
j_schroeder
New Member
#7
Ditto to all. Last audit cycle during my stake audit I had to have the clerk pull up information on the transactions and he could show me both approvals through the online portal. But if that information exists for automated transactions then shouldn't the system be able to check that for me?
mattsalt77
New Member
#8
This is my exact question. How do I verify that it's been approved. There are receipts, and it looks correct to me, but I can't verify who approved the transaction in the first place.

How does one do that exactly?
funaddict
New Member
#9
"I simply make sure to instruct wards to not have the Bishop be the submitter as he's always an approver. Have a counselor or clerk submit a payment expense. But training would be nice :)"

How do you do this if the Bishop paid for an expense and has the receipt? Why would he need to have a clerk/counsellor submit the expense?
Also, is signing the check the same as approving the expense? If Bishop A turns in an expense reimbursement request, and Counsellor B and Clerk C sign the check, is that considered two separate (apart from the Bishop) approvals?
eblood66
Senior Member
#10
funaddict wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:56 pm How do you do this if the Bishop paid for an expense and has the receipt?
Same as for anyone else who can't submit their own expense. Give it to the clerk and he enters it.
funaddict wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:56 pm Why would he need to have a clerk/counsellor submit the expense?
Because if he enters it, he is the first approver and that is against policy. However, if he uses the Payment Request option in Member Tools on a mobile device then it' OK. In that case he isn't the first approver. Someone else has to review and submit the expense and then a 2nd person has to approve.
funaddict wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:56 pm Also, is signing the check the same as approving the expense? If Bishop A turns in an expense reimbursement request, and Counsellor B and Clerk C sign the check, is that considered two separate (apart from the Bishop) approvals?
If you're using paper documentation and not uploading an electronic copy then signing the check is the approval. So if the bishop enters and prints a check (without uploading) and others sign it then that's OK (but I've never known a bishop who wants to print checks--they have enough to do).
BrianEdwards
Senior Member
#11
It's probably clear to most, but I'm not sure so I'll ask. From the above discussion it seems like the system should ideally be able to detect when the Bishop is submitting an expense for himself, and prevent that from going through (and thus avoiding an audit issue). Right now, it seems like it's a manual process to detect and avoid this from happening.

Is this correct? And are there other cases (like the Bishop entering and then printing a check which he doesn't sign), that make sense for the system to allow this to go through?
eblood66
Senior Member
#12
BrianEdwards wrote: Fri Aug 26, 2022 9:59 amIs this correct? And are there other cases (like the Bishop entering and then printing a check which he doesn't sign), that make sense for the system to allow this to go through?
We were just discussing this in our stake audit last Sunday. The auditors have seen more instances of bishops doing this now that there is not a separate Young Mens presidency. We couldn't figure out why the system doesn't just block this and only gives a warning. You'd assume there must be since it does allow it to happen. But even then I think a more strongly worded warning which indicates the only cases where it is appropriate (assuming there are such cases) would be beneficial.
jonvance
New Member
#13
I just want to say I am having this same issue. The Church expense system allows the Bishop to electronically submit, approve, and pay himself a reimbursement without any other approver at any point in the process. However, during an audit, these expenses are automatically flagged for review under "the system could not find two approvers". Of course it couldn't find two approvers! It allowed the expense to go through with only one! There is no way to "find" a second approver. Our Area Auditor insists this is an exception then why does the Expense platform allow it?

I would really appreciate some official guidance from the Church Finance Department on this.
ceddings wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 11:32 pm Hello
I am a stake auditor, auditing a ward. I am confused in reading the audit question:

Does the payment have two authorized approvals and proper support documents that match the Church financial system?

The unit has uploaded receipts and I can see the bishop's automated approval has taken place. Why is the audit system asking if their are two authorized approvals? That is what the LUFAS is set up to do, is it not? It seems like this question should only be focused on whether the support matches the payment. I shouldn't be looking for two authorized approvals - there is no where to look. But the first question #8 indicates the system has already found the bishop's automated support so I should be able to assume the necessary approvals have taken place.

Thanks!
jdlessley
Community Moderators
#14
jonvance wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 6:47 pm I would really appreciate some official guidance from the Church Finance Department on this.
That won't happen here. You could ask your audit committee chairman to contact the area auditor for instruction.
JD Lessley
Have you tried finding your answer on the ChurchofJesusChrist.org Help Center or Tech Wiki?
garystroble
Senior Member
#15
It would appear the business rules for the audit and the approvals were never coordinated. Wonder how long it will take them to be.
waynecooke
Member
#16
Unfortunately, as was witnessed in the MLS conversion in October of 2010, not all Church Financial changes are without bugs. :(