Other Category

I was recently called as a new ward clerk. The first time that I did reconciliation I found that we had a temporary item to cover a difference between MLS and the CUFS. The CUFS listed our other category having $19 more than we report in MLS. I tracked this back to September of 2008, the last time the $19 difference was reported on CUFS. I believe that the problem lies between August and September of 2008.

What do I need to do next to identify and correct the problem? How do I change MLS to report the same amount in the other category that CUFS is stating? I went over both CUFS for August and September and I can't find how the problem began. Suggestions?? I have already asked previous clerks and they don't know. They have just left the temporary item on each reconciliation since 2008. I don't want to do that, I want it fixed.

I'd look for a returned donation check. You can read the wiki on how it's handled.

I look over the donation batch for each of the months and found no returned checks. I also looked over expenses for voided checks or uncleared checks. I have not found any check or amount recorded for the amount I can't account for.

sgtbrown26 wrote:I was recently called as a new ward clerk. The first time that I did reconciliation I found that we had a temporary item to cover a difference between MLS and the CUFS. The CUFS listed our other category having $19 more than we report in MLS. I tracked this back to September of 2008, the last time the $19 difference was reported on CUFS. I believe that the problem lies between August and September of 2008.

What do I need to do next to identify and correct the problem? How do I change MLS to report the same amount in the other category that CUFS is stating? I went over both CUFS for August and September and I can't find how the problem began. Suggestions?? I have already asked previous clerks and they don't know. They have just left the temporary item on each reconciliation since 2008. I don't want to do that, I want it fixed.

First of all, it's wise of you to truly fix this. If a temporary item is carried forward for more than a month or two, it's probably an indication that an issue is being ignored.

It sounds like you've done the first important step, and that is to identify when the problem appeared. I assume when you say September 2008 was "the last time the $19 difference was reported on CUFS" you actually mean that the difference was reported on the reconciliation (not the CUFS).

So if the temporary item first became necessary to reconcile September 2008, that most likely means that the September 2008 CUFS contained some sort of item that does not match MLS, or that in September 2008 some MLS item was created that does not match the CUFS. By cross checking all the transactions in MLS and the CUFS for that month you should be able to identify the item.

Your correct. The difference was listed on the reconcilation for the first time in September of 2008. I went over the CUFS for September and compared it with MLS line by line and found no difference. I checked the balances, and the deposits, expenses, and transactions tabs. I will check it again today because there is always the possiblity that I missed something. I lost sleep over it and want it fixed. I checked with the stake clerk and he could not figure it out, but he was on a tight schedule and had little time to really dig deep into it. What should I do next?

sgtbrown26 wrote:Your correct. The difference was listed on the reconciliation for the first time in September of 2008. I went over the CUFS for September and compared it with MLS line by line and found no difference. I checked the balances, and the deposits, expenses, and transactions tabs. I will check it again today because there is always the possibility that I missed something. I lost sleep over it and want it fixed. I checked with the stake clerk and he could not figure it out, but he was on a tight schedule and had little time to really dig deep into it. What should I do next?

It's also possible for some transaction before September to be affecting the reconciliation. Unfortunately, that can be difficult to track down.

However, when I read between the lines, it seems like you're saying that September 2008 still reconciles (with the $19 temporary item). If so, then you are pretty lucky. That would mean that you could reconcile August 2008 and see how that looks. If it won't balance without the addition of a $19 temporary item, then that means you need to look further back in time. You can just keep moving back a month until you balance without a temporary item.

Note that some things you (or another clerk) might have done later would be dated in those earlier months, which might also be affecting your balance.

Once you have tried everything you know how (including working with your stake clerk and/or stake financial clerk), another possible resource is to call Local Unit Support and see if you can get help from a Reconciliation Specialist. They are experts at this kind of thing.

sgtbrown26 wrote:The difference was listed on the reconcilation for the first time in September of 2008.

Hmmm. I wonder if the problem occurred before that, but September was just the first time it was recorded as part of the reconciliation. I'd check the balance as well as the individual transactions.

It's also possible that someone might have done a correction on a prior MLS entry. That would render prior reconciliations inaccurate.

One last question. Why do I have several hundred dollars listed in the other category that is being carried over month to month. I am not aware of any other items like scout camp or girls camp, nor any other type of approved activity that has collected money to place in the other category. Shouldn't the other category be zero unless we are using it for an approved activity and putting money in that category? The other category has had money in it for the past two years that has grown and never been completely used. We are not supporting scout camp this year because of lack of funds, but our other category stats otherwise .

sgtbrown26 wrote:One last question. Why do I have several hundred dollars listed in the other category that is being carried over month to month. I am not aware of any other items like scout camp or girls camp, nor any other type of approved activity that has collected money to place in the other category. Shouldn't the other category be zero unless we are using it for an approved activity and putting money in that category? The other category has had money in it for the past two years that has grown and never been completely used. We are not supporting scout camp this year because of lack of funds, but our other category stats otherwise .

There should never be anything in the parent "Other" category. Since all uses of the Other category should be for a specific purpose, all expenses and deposits in the Other category should be designated in a particular subcategory of Other.

If you are using the subcategories properly, then it should be easy to see exactly what came in and out and your current balance for Scout Camp, YW Camp, or any other approved use of the Other category, because those transactions will be in a subcategory such as "Other:Scout Camp".

If you have any transactions in the parent "Other" category, then you should examine those closely to see what subcategory they really should have been in (and correct the category appropriately). If you have unidentified surplus funds in the parent category, then you should handle those as described in the wiki under How to deal with surpluses.

Man what a lot of work to have to go back that far. As Russellhltn mentioned, you might have to go back prior to Sep 2008. If an error was made to an adjustment (that was made in Sep 2008) to a prior closed batch, the Sep reconciliation wouldn't balance or show the error. I would go back further looking for a retroactive adjustment.

Good for you for being so diligent. Good luck!

I've dealt with something similar a couple times. While the cause could be varied, in my case, both times it was due to category changes made in MLS that were not made at CHQ. Back then, I believe changes had to be called in. If that didn't happen, that could lead to your error.

If that is the cause, finding it is going to be a bit challenging because you are not looking for the date of an expense but instead the date of an adjustment to an expense. You do know, at least, that it was in 2008 so if you look at just that year, the number of expenses that have adjustments made to them should be small. In case you don't know, those that have been adjusted have reference numbers flagged with three asterics (***). The reason for the change should be in the description column.

Another thing to look at is donations. A recent example was a donation made to Other: Temple (specific) that should have instead gone to Other: Temple - Patron assistance. The later is automatically swept but the former collects at the ward and, periodically, cuts are checked and mailed in. While doing the reconcile, we noticed an unexpected balance in Other and investigated. Upon tracking it down, we made the category switch. However, to finish the reconcile, we had to add a temporary item. This temporary item will have to be carried until the category switch is made in CHQ. When it is made, it will show up in the Miscellaneous section of the CUFS. Again, if it never does show up, the temporary item will have to be carried through month to month in order to reconcile.

In both situations, once you identify the category change, go through your finance statements to see if the corresponding switch ever appears. If it doesn't, your fix is as simple as contacting clerk support and informing them of that. The switch shows up the next month, and your temporary item can be removed.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, have you thumbed though a few months looking for $19 transactions? Hopefully this is a single transaction causing the problem, so a quick look for that specific amount might get fast results.

RussellHltn wrote:At the risk of pointing out the obvious, have you thumbed though a few months looking for $19 transactions? Hopefully this is a single transaction causing the problem, so a quick look for that specific amount might get fast results.

Good point!

Not that this will help, but after I was called and got a little comfortable I found a surplus in an account and had to go back to 2007 to find the details and fix it. I think by the end of this summer (after all the camps are over) all my other accounts will be zero. A lot of investigation and a lot of calling people for permissions to move donations to either Fast offerings or to support a missionary.

BTW. I looked (well not in detail) but is there a policy on how long an other account can have a negative balance?

ecotim wrote:I looked (well not in detail) but is there a policy on how long an other account can have a negative balance?

There is no specific policy, but it shouldn't be long at all. For pass-through accounts, funds are to be collected and spent for that purpose "promptly." But a negative balance in a particular subcategory should not be allowed to stay for long, and an overall negative balance may likely lead to a reminder letter from Church Headquarters.

That "promptly" word appears on the audit form. If you have a negative balance when a semi-annual audit occurs, it is likely to generate an exception. Then you'll have the bishop, the auditor, and the audit committee all encouraging you to take corrective action.

For all those who might wonder what the end result is on this topic; its fixed. I went back to Jan 2008 and worked my way forwarding checking every block. In June 2008 a member donated $19 (under the other category) for a trip to Palmayra and the clerk accidently recorded the funds to the budget category. I made the changes and the numbers reconciled.

I continued to track the other account through June 2010 to account for every transaction to the other category. It only took a little over 3 hours to track down and fix each problem. Not to mention, while doing this I found new problems and fixed each of them including filing errors. I wonder how we passed each audit. As a side note, I learned how to read the CUFS better and I learned more about finances. Blessing in disguise. Now I can sleep better .

Thank you for the follow-up.

Try checking how your miscellaneous disbursements and expenses are entered. Sometimes they are credits instead of expenses and if entered wrong, you can have an unreconciled difference. Just a thought.

John Buck
Clerk;)

This may be a silly question given that the problem that prompted this discussion is resolved, but wouldn't it have been easier if a simple error could not be located to request a refresh of the financial data from your support office? That way, everything they have will match exactly with what you have. It won't tell you what the problem was, but it would fix it nonetheless. Or am I missing something here?

jltware wrote:This may be a silly question given that the problem that prompted this discussion is resolved, but wouldn't it have been easier if a simple error could not be located to request a refresh of the financial data from your support office? That way, everything they have will match exactly with what you have. It won't tell you what the problem was, but it would fix it nonetheless. Or am I missing something here?

At present, in the US and Canada the financial system has no feature for "requesting a refresh of the financial data." It's quite different elsewhere in the world. So although your suggestion might be helpful in Australia, it doesn't apply in the US. (Changes are underway so that later this year, the US/Canada will have a system similar to what the rest of the world already has.)

MLS in Australia doesn't have this yet either. However, it is easy enough to request area offices to push it through from their end. Just needs a phone call or email. I would imagine there must be some sort of system where a backend administrator could refresh the database from their end. Otherwise, there would be no recovery method should the MLS hard drive fail unless a recent backup was available. However, I confess I have no knowledge whatsoever about how involved this would be. I will leave it to people wiser than I to answer that one. If the ability to do this really is completely absent at all adminsitrative levels in America, it would make certain problems very hard to fix. Probably a good thing they're adding that feature if so.

It is not hard to tell when an update has been made. The simplest method is to check the version number. While there have been updates without notification in the past this has not been so here in the US or Canada since version 2.9.2. We have had miscommunication but generally know that the updates occur.

If a problem is the result of an MLS update then wouldn't there be more than one unit reporting the same problem?

If it is an update to MLS itself, then yes, the version number will usually make it very obvious. But these updates tend to be well documented on the forums and release notes, and are not usually the source of the problems I am talking about. However, whenever the back end at the area offices / CHQ is updated, it may necessitate modifications (perhaps updates was the wrong word) to the MLS platforms communicating with that server. These modifications are supposed to go through without interruption of our end at all. However, they seem to be a frequent source of unanticipated bloopers, and it would be nice if we were given warning when such changes were planned even if they are intended to be unnoticed, since they frequently aren't.

And in the recent cases I was referring to, the whole stake was affected (all units) and area offices said that similar reports had come in from other units. Given that not one ward in the stake has approached me to complain that their whole budget has been deleted despite me personally logging on and confirming that this is the case in all of them, I wouldn't put to much weight to the assumption that if nobody reports it, then nobody's been affected. There is a great degree of variation between units when it comes to technical expertise to notice problems, and also a slightly depressed "care factor" when it comes to debugging what they see as a problem with the program that we can't fix.

BTW, I think we have crossed threads here. Perhaps we should move this back.

jltware wrote:I would imagine there must be some sort of system where a backend administrator could refresh the database from their end. Otherwise, there would be no recovery method should the MLS hard drive fail unless a recent backup was available.

There is a method of making a backup available, but I don't know if it can be pushed out without destroying the data entered since the last 30-day backup.

jltware wrote:. . . wouldn't it have been easier if a simple error could not be located to request a refresh of the financial data from your support office? That way, everything they have will match exactly with what you have. It won't tell you what the problem was, but it would fix it nonetheless. Or am I missing something here?

In this case, a refresh of the financial data (we call it a restore here) would not have fixed the problem. The problem was that the local clerk recorded the information incorrectly in MLS. Restoring a backup would just have restored the same problem again.

RussellHltn wrote:There is a method of making a backup available, but I don't know if it can be pushed out without destroying the data entered since the last 30-day backup.

The last time one of our units needed to obtain a backup from Church Headquarters, Hq placed it in a directory on the local unit computer. The local unit then had to restore from that backup.

All data entered after the date of the backup was lost. The computer reverted to the way it was at the moment CHQ took the backup. The local unit had to reenter all membership and financial information after the date of the restored backup.

As Alan mentioned, we look forward to the day when we will not have to worry about these reconciliation issues. Countries outside the US and Canada do not have to worry about them today. At some point it will be the same way here. In this area, you have the advantage in Australia and other countries around the world.

Wow, that's really interesting. Particularly so because I know there are plans in place to move Australia over to the same back end that USA uses for their financial database in the very near future. I wonder if we will lose this ability in the process.