Auditor conflict?

We seem to have a shortage of qualified Auditors for the Stake. As the Stake is working to resolve this point, I am told that one of auditors that we do have, should not perform an audit in his home ward because of some feeling of a conflict of interest.
The question is; does anyone know of a policy that talks about a conflict of interest? I don't find one.

Blairjames

blairjames wrote:does anyone know of a policy that talks about a conflict of interest? I don't find one.

I can't find any such policy or guideline in the Handbook, audit forms, or training lessons. However, the Audit Committee does assign individual auditors to audit particular units, and may make those assignments however the chairman feels is appropriate. Concern for a potential conflict of interest could be a reasonable criterion used by the Audit Committee -- but that is a local decision.

Similarly, the conflict of interest question was raised once because I have audited my home ward for years. The response was that since I have no direct responsibility or signing authority for the ward finances, I am at "arms length" and no conflict exists.

I'm a ward finance clerk, and I home-teach our auditor. That did not constrain him from dinging us on a certain item in the last audit.

boomerbubba wrote:I'm a ward finance clerk, and I home-teach our auditor. That did not constrain him from dinging us on a certain item in the last audit.

Or maybe that is why he dinged you.:rolleyes:

blairjames wrote:I am told that one of auditors that we do have, should not perform an audit in his home ward because of some feeling of a conflict of interest.
The question is; does anyone know of a policy that talks about a conflict of interest? I don't find one.

As Alan said, it is up to the Stake Audit Committee. We have an assistant ward clerk who is also a stake auditor. Because he does finances in his ward, he is never assigned to audit his own ward.

We have a former bishop who now serves as an auditor. We did not assign him to audit his ward for several years after he was released as bishop, but recently we did send him there. Decisions he made as bishop, as well as any responsibility for the finances of that ward, have long since passed. But we could not send him there at first, because the initial audit after his release was really an audit of the ward finances as he left them at the time of his release.

We have an auditor who is a close personal friend of one of our bishops, so we do not send that auditor to that ward.

We usually (but not always) rotate auditor assignments so that there is a fresh look at each ward and branch each time. Some of our auditors are better than others, and we send them in to units that struggle with their financial responsibilities. Sometimes we ask a high councilor to perform an audit while he is visiting a far-flung ward or branch.

If a ward has had no audit findings for several audits, we will send in one of our best auditors. He is not sent to make sure there is a finding. He goes merely to make sure that nothing is being overlooked. And in most cases, he completes another audit without any findings.

Like most other callings in the Church, we know our auditors, and we know our bishops, branch presidents, and clerks. We try to assign auditors in a way that the audits are impartial and effective, and that the experience is varied and enjoyable for all involved.

lajackson wrote: We have an assistant ward clerk who is also a stake auditor. Because he does finances in his ward, he is never assigned to audit his own ward.

It is my understanding that finance clerks cannot be auditors, even if they do not audit their own ward.

mlh78 wrote:It is my understanding that finance clerks cannot be auditors, even if they do not audit their own ward.

That's basically correct. In the Stake Audit Committee lesson on slide 14, it says:

Because of their close ties to stake and ward finances, stake and ward clerks should not serve as auditors or as members of the stake audit committee.

I suppose that if skilled auditors are in short supply in a stake, the "should" word might allow an exception (of course a clerk would never audit his own ward), but the general rule is pretty clear.

Alan_Brown wrote:I suppose that if skilled auditors are in short supply in a stake, the "should" word might allow an exception . . ., but the general rule is pretty clear.

Thanks. We definitely "should" look at this one, and we will. Another agenda item for this week's meeting. [grin]

blairjames wrote:The question is; does anyone know of a policy that talks about a conflict of interest? I don't find one.

It will never cease to amaze me of the wisdom and insite that the members of this forum have, to almost any subject that is posed.

I have resolved to my satisfaction the question posed in the original thread, mostly from the response and conversation that it created. It appears that other thoughts and questions have evolved from the original question, and I think that is great. Thanks Folks

Blairjames

I've been a Stake Auditor for five years now. I've been a Stake Computer Specialist for four years. I've never thought about a conflict of interest before, except when auditing my own Ward. This thread answers the home Ward question, but what about my Stake Clerk position?

I guess the only issue I see is that I happen to have Admin access to all computers and MLS databases in the Stake where a normal Stake Auditor has no access, but must rely on the Ward Clerk and or Bishop to open MLS during the audit. I have used my access as a Stake Clerk to research a Ward's messy "Other Account" issues as part of a followup assignment from the Stake Presidency to try and help the Ward cleanup the problems. At times, the two callings have helped each other out and seem to work in harmony.

Any thoughts?

maxmcgregor wrote:I have used my access as a Stake Clerk to research a Ward's messy "Other Account" issues as part of a followup assignment from the Stake Presidency to try and help the Ward cleanup the problems. At times, the two callings have helped each other out and seem to work in harmony.

Personally, I would keep you on the cleanup committee. Anyone who can help straighten out an Other Account is a valuable person around here. [grin]

I guess it goes back to what we will discuss tonight. I had never thought about anything other than a ward conflict if an auditor was a ward clerk or assistant. And I would not assign a stake clerk to audit, because he will be the one responsible, in most cases, to oversee the correction of findings and to provide training to clerks to avoid future audit findings.

I suppose the theory is that the clerks ought to clerk, and the auditors ought to audit. And they should be independent of each other.

And I see that as a good approach to start from.

I can see where, from a strict auditing standpoint, it might be better if anyone involved in stake clerking were not to audit.

I suppose that our assistant ward clerk who audits other units could hold us hostage for additional budget money in return for his services if we did not keep a close eye on him. [hehehe]

maxmcgregor wrote:I guess the only issue I see is that I happen to have Admin access to all computers and MLS databases in the Stake where a normal Stake Auditor has no access, but must rely on the Ward Clerk and or Bishop to open MLS during the audit.

Since you have access and audit responsibility, it could create the appearance that you were in a position to cover your own actions. I don't know if that's a problem from the "letter of the law" standpoint, but I do see a problem from an "appearance" standpoint.