MLS finance transition to CUBS

I just got notice from MLS that our stake is gettnig CUBS on Aug.22. We received instructions to make sure we do a Send/Recive on Aug. 15 and then not to use MLS until we do another Send/Receive on Aug. 22. The way I read it, the Send/Receive will download a file that will activate the CUBS.

Did anyone else get the notice? I have not heard of any training related to CUBS to help with how this is going to impact how the stake allocates the budget.

RWoodmansee wrote:Did anyone else get the notice?

Yes, got the same message on our stake admin machine this morning. It was addressed to "Finance Clerks". I assume it went to all units in the stake, but can't confirm that.

RWoodmansee wrote:We received instructions to make sure we do a Send/Recive on Aug. 15 and then not to use MLS until we do another Send/Receive on Aug. 22.

The instructions didn't say not to use MLS -- just not to make any changes to finances during that week. You can do all you want in any area other than finances, and you can run any finance reports during that week. But if you make any finance changes, they will be overwritten when the new data is downloaded to your MLS on August 22.

RWoodmansee wrote:Did anyone else get the notice? I have not heard of any training related to CUBS to help with how this is going to impact how the stake allocates the budget.

Apparently lots of people got the notice. Our stake did. There was a previous message sent on July 25 that explained how the stake will allocate the budget under the new system. That same content is on the wiki under MLS finance transition.

Yes, we received the same message on our ward computer today. I made sure the current finance clerk was up-to-date on reconciliations (but I don't think we had the July statement yet). So I hope we're all set for the 15th.

I searched the forum and found other references to the new CUBS system.
All I can say is that it will relieve you of a lot of work and frustration you have had in the past.

The message said that the new finance file would be available "on Sunday, August 22." Is that really the earliest it will be available? It sure would be nice if it were available sometime on Saturday so that we could work through some of these transition issues before the busy Sunday (which will be a bit busier than usual because nothing financial will have been done in the prior week).

Does anyone have any information about whether the updated finance file might be available a bit sooner than that Sunday?

Greetings,

I also have a question about the migration. The second memo said that MLS Finance changes shouldn't be made after midnight on August 15th because they would have to re-entered, right? Being the geek that I am, my first reaction was that this means one minute after 11:59pm on 8/14, so we couldn't for example process donations from Sunday August 15th.

After calming down and thinking about it, I suspect the memo means one minute after 11:59pm on August 15th (which I think would actually be midnight on August 16th), so we can process the donations from Sunday August 15th so long as we get them done before midnight. That just makes more sense than my first interpretation of the memo.

Can someone confirm that we'll be able to process donations on Sunday August 15th? As the Stake Technology Specialist, I know I'm going to get this question from at least one Finance Clerk.

Thanks,

Dave

Alan_Brown wrote:The message said that the new finance file would be available "on Sunday, August 22." Is that really the earliest it will be available? It sure would be nice if it were available sometime on Saturday so that we could work through some of these transition issues before the busy Sunday (which will be a bit busier than usual because nothing financial will have been done in the prior week).

Does anyone have any information about whether the updated finance file might be available a bit sooner than that Sunday?

There is a chance that will be available sooner, but I wouldn't count on it. The transition to the new system is really taking all of the old financial data and converting it to the new system during the week. As soon as it is all processed, the system will be available. Because the United States has so much data, the thinking is that it will take through Saturday to get it all processed. You can try to use the system on Saturday, but there are no guarantees that you will be able to use it.

superdave98 wrote:Greetings,

I also have a question about the migration. The second memo said that MLS Finance changes shouldn't be made after midnight on August 15th because they would have to re-entered, right? Being the geek that I am, my first reaction was that this means one minute after 11:59pm on 8/14, so we couldn't for example process donations from Sunday August 15th.

After calming down and thinking about it, I suspect the memo means one minute after 11:59pm on August 15th (which I think would actually be midnight on August 16th), so we can process the donations from Sunday August 15th so long as we get them done before midnight. That just makes more sense than my first interpretation of the memo.

Can someone confirm that we'll be able to process donations on Sunday August 15th? As the Stake Technology Specialist, I know I'm going to get this question from at least one Finance Clerk.

Thanks,

Dave

You are correct. You will be able to process donations on Sunday.

superdave98 wrote:Being the geek that I am, my first reaction was ...

I haven't seen the memo, but being the geek I am, the first question is "which time zone"? For the folks in Hawaii, that could be 8PM on Sunday. I'm not sure if Guam is on this system or not, but if they are, they could be looking at 4PM on Monday.

RussellHltn wrote:I haven't seen the memo, but being the geek I am, the first question is "which time zone"? For the folks in Hawaii, that could be 8PM on Sunday. I'm not sure if Guam is on this system or not, but if they are, they could be looking at 4PM on Monday.

For any message that does not specify a time zone, I think it's safe to assume that it is the time zone of the location from which the message originates. That would be Mountain Time (although it would have been nice if that had been stated explicitly). Given that assumption, Hawaii would have to wrap things up well before the end of their Sunday.

RussellHltn wrote:I haven't seen the memo, but being the geek I am, the first question is "which time zone"? For the folks in Hawaii, that could be 8PM on Sunday. I'm not sure if Guam is on this system or not, but if they are, they could be looking at 4PM on Monday.

It should be midnight Monday morning for any time zone. MLS should have received a flag to lock out the finance section according to the system date and time I believe.

That is the best that I understand it. I hope that helps.

More light is always helpful. Glad to see you posting again.

RussellHltn wrote:More light is always helpful. Glad to see you posting again.

Sorry, I can't give more information on the CUBS stuff, but I am trying to keep the forum updated as I learn them. If questions arise, I will try and find out the answers.

Thanks.

Can someone tell me if my understanding of the transition is correct?

After all financial transactions are done on Sunday, Aug. 15th each unit needs to do a send/receive.
HQ will convert the financial data from this last send receive into the new format that will be available to download on Sunday, Aug. 22nd.
Any financial transactions entered in MLS from the last send/receive on Sunday, Aug. 15th to the first send/receive on Sunday, Aug. 22nd will be deleted during the the first send/receive on Sunday, Aug. 22nd. It will need to be reentered in MLS after the update on Sunday, Aug. 22nd.
After the first send/receive on Sunday, Aug. 22nd the new system should be active and normal financial functionality will resume.

daniel.lovell wrote:After the first send/receive on Sunday, Aug. 22nd the new system should be active and normal financial functionality will resume.

That's a good summary. I'd just note that "normal" will be different under CUBS.

daniel.lovell wrote:Can someone tell me if my understanding of the transition is correct?

After all financial transactions are done on Sunday, Aug. 15th each unit needs to do a send/receive.
HQ will convert the financial data from this last send receive into the new format that will be available to download on Sunday, Aug. 22nd.
Any financial transactions entered in MLS from the last send/receive on Sunday, Aug. 15th to the first send/receive on Sunday, Aug. 22nd will be deleted during the the first send/receive on Sunday, Aug. 22nd. It will need to be reentered in MLS after the update on Sunday, Aug. 22nd.
After the first send/receive on Sunday, Aug. 22nd the new system should be active and normal financial functionality will resume.

This is correct.

Alan_Brown wrote:That same content is on the wiki under MLS finance transition.

I notice the page hasn't been updated to reflect the roll-out in the US.

Any idea how this new method will handle the year-end roll-over? My first take on this is that we're changing from a "budget allotment/'magic' account" (that always returns to a zero balance) to be more like a "normal" bank account with income, expense and balance.

I'm sure it will be easier for new clerks, but it seems like a significant "mind shift" for those of us who "got" the old system.

RussellHltn wrote:I notice the page hasn't been updated to reflect the roll-out in the US.

The updating of that page (and its redirects) is being done by Church employees. It seems to have been done after the transitions in the three areas where CUBS has been implemented, not in anticipation of the transition. So if that pattern is maintained, I wouldn't expect the page to have been updated yet.

RussellHltn wrote:Any idea how this new method will handle the year-end roll-over?

The only documentation I've seen is what's on that wiki page. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that the Budget category will cease to have any special year-end treatment; it will work just like Ward Missionary and Other.

RussellHltn wrote:My first take on this is that we're changing from a "budget allotment/'magic' account" (that always returns to a zero balance) to be more like a "normal" bank account with income, expense and balance.

Yes, that's the biggest part of the change. Budget allocation funds will actually be transferred into each unit's account each quarter.

The other big change is that automatic debits (such as for monthly missionary expenses and Distribution Services charges) will be downloaded to MLS. No data entry is required for these, although such Budget expenses will have to be assigned to the correct subcategory.

RussellHltn wrote:I'm sure it will be easier for new clerks, but it seems like a significant "mind shift" for those of us who "got" the old system.

Yes, it's a significant change, but for the most part, it just makes the Budget category work like the Ward Missionary and Other, and so it's a matter of forgetting the odd handling of that category in the past -- there's not much you need to learn. At least that's true at the ward level; the stake will have some new learning in the system of sub-allocating the budget allowance to the wards and branches.

Should we reconcile our July statement before the 15th?

BroMurray wrote:Should we reconcile our July statement before the 15th?

I plan on it. No mention is made of needing to do it but I don't want to get stuck with anything.

BroMurray wrote:Should we reconcile our July statement before the 15th?

I would think that's a good idea. I've done mine. It seems like we should do everything as normal until the transition date -- that should reduce the number of transition issues we have to resolve.

This is reminding me of the transition from FIS to MLS (which, for us, happened in November 2004). I knew exactly what was going on in our ward finances (and was all up-to-date in FIS before the transition) but I just didn't know how to please MLS at first. I wasn't trying to enter any false information or mis-manage ward funds in any way but MLS was still "slapping my hands" a lot. Don't try to argue with MLS because 1) it's in charge anyway, 2) it's extremely stubborn and 3) it'll win every time using the law of "because I said so." In 2004 I was convinced that FIS had been my tool but MLS was my master.

But then, once I learned the MLS way of doing things, it was okay. So I would suggest that the first month of CUBS will cause a lot of hair loss but, after that, it'll probably be okay. Dig into it as soon as you can. Then let's all come back here and share our "tips and tricks" right off the bat.

So a unit's unused budget will roll over from quarter to quarter and year to year? It will not get automatically zeroed out at any point?

ddurocher wrote:So a unit's unused budget will roll over from quarter to quarter and year to year? It will not get automatically zeroed out at any point?

It will certainly roll over from quarter to quarter and not get zeroed at the quarter. We'll have to see just what happens at the year end. It appears that MLS will not automatically zero out the Budget category at the end of a year anymore, but I local stakes still control the overall budget and may set local policies.

Alan_Brown wrote:It appears that MLS will not automatically zero out the Budget category at the end of a year anymore, but I local stakes still control the overall budget and may set local policies.

In our stake we have mulled over the idea of just having the wards send a check to the stake for the balance of their budget at the end of the year. I sure hope that this new system affords stakes continued flexibility in how they allocate budgets.

The documentation says:

For units in Canada, half of the amount of the tax will be left in the unit's account. The other half of the tax amount plus the expense will be deducted from the account."

Does anyone know if this allocation of "half the tax" needs to be done manually or if we should be putting the full amount of the tax in the tax account ...

David

ddurocher wrote:The documentation says:

"For units in Canada, half of the amount of the tax will be left in the unit's account. The other half of the tax amount plus the expense will be deducted from the account."

Does anyone know if this allocation of "half the tax" needs to be done manually or if we should be putting the full amount of the tax in the tax account ...

The instructions say (just before what you quoted):

For those units that are required to record sales tax with each disbursement, this will no longer be recorded in a Tax field on the Expense screen. Instead, the amount of the expense will be split between the expense and the tax on the expense. Both will be entered under the "Category" and "Amount" columns.

It could have been worded a bit better, but it seems pretty clear to me that we will be entering the full amount of the expense and the tax. But then there will be a reimbursement of part (Canada) or all (Utah/NC) of the tax portion. It only makes sense to say "half of the amount of the tax will be left in the unit's account" if the full amount is recorded.

So if I understand it correctly, if you purchase something with a base price of $100 and tax of $6 for a total of $106, you would record a total expense of $106 and the categories would be $100 for the appropriate budget category (say, Budget:Activities), and the remaining $6 would be in some new special category for tax. Then for units in Canada the net expense would be $103 (I don't know if this is done via an automatic reimbursement transfer of $3 or if it will just be the way the expense shows up), and for units in Utah and North Carolina the net expense would be $100. For all other units, they would not need to use the special tax category, and the total expense would be $106.

mlh78 wrote:In our stake we have mulled over the idea of just having the wards send a check to the stake for the balance of their budget at the end of the year.

I'm curious why you would do this. Is this for the case if wards are allowed to keep their excess budget? However, I see no point. Ultimately, all budget money resides in the stake, not the ward. There is no need to have them cut you a check. Just tell them that as of Jan 1 their new budget is $X.
edit: I'm slow, but get it now. If it does roll over, they'll get the new disbursement added to the carryover. I guess you could play w/ percentages, but that's more work. I sure wish we could get some more details about this system.

mlh78 wrote:I sure hope that this new system affords stakes continued flexibility in how they allocate budgets.

One of my greatest frustrations with what I understand about CUBS is how our hand is somewhat limited when it comes to budgets. From the instructions:

The stake determines the distribution of the entire budget amount for the stake and all its wards unless directed otherwise by area authorities. Stakes manage this by assigning budget distribution percentages between the stake and each ward...

You still have full control over the percentages to assign, but it might take a little more creativity on your part now to figure out just what the percentages need to be to assign the budget the way you intended. I've already created a spreadsheet to compute percentages from our current way of assigning the budget.

Alan_Brown wrote: Then for units in Canada the net expense would be $103 (I don't know if this is done via an automatic reimbursement transfer of $3 or if it will just be the way the expense shows up),

OK, so I guess we still don't know if in Canada, we should be entering $100 in the budget account and $6 in the tax (and the system automatically re-allocates $3), or if we manually have to split the tax amount between the two - $103 and $3.

BTW, in Ontario that would be more like $100 and $13, OR $106.50 and $6.50.

Sometimes I think if I had lived in King Noah's kingdom and only had to pay a 1/5, it might not have been so bad ...

ddurocher wrote:OK, so I guess we still don't know if in Canada, we should be entering $100 in the budget account and $6 in the tax (and the system automatically re-allocates $3), or if we manually have to split the tax amount between the two - $103 and $3.

So are you saying you disagree with my reading of the documentation where I said that you would enter the full $6 tax? Or that I wasn't clear in my answer? Because I definitely think (and wrote) that the documentation says you enter the full tax amount -- MLS will then take care of what to do with half the amount (charge it to the unit) and the other half (effectively reimburse it).

ddurocher wrote:The documentation says:

"For units in Canada, half of the amount of the tax will be left in the unit's account. The other half of the tax amount plus the expense will be deducted from the account."

Does anyone know if this allocation of "half the tax" needs to be done manually or if we should be putting the full amount of the tax in the tax account ...

It seems the first switch will be this coming week, so as of right now it's all based on what we understand from the very short description given. My best guess is that the "Tax" section will now be either another column or a second row in the category and amount section. That comes from this:

For those units that are required to record sales tax with each disbursement, this will no longer be recorded in a Tax field on the Expense screen. Instead, the amount of the expense will be split between the expense and the tax on the expense. Both will be entered under the "Category" and "Amount" columns

I understand "expense" to be the subtotal and "tax on the expense" to be the tax which, added together, sum to the total reimbursement amount. I assume, then, that based on your geographic region, HQ will figure out how much, if any, of the tax to take from the budget. Half is a pretty easy calculation for them/MLS to do. Again just guessing, but I don't think you will have to figure it out yourself.

crislapi wrote:It seems the first switch will be this coming week, so as of right now it's all based on what we understand from the very short description given. My best guess is that the "Tax" section will now be either another column or a second row in the category and amount section. That comes from this:

I understand "expense" to be the subtotal and "tax on the expense" to be the tax which, added together, sum to the total reimbursement amount. I assume, then, that based on your geographic region, HQ will figure out how much, if any, of the tax to take from the budget. Half is a pretty easy calculation for them/MLS to do. Again just guessing, but I don't think you will have to figure it out yourself.

In my stake we already have the new tax account in MLS. When we enter an expense now, the budget category (or categories) and the tax amount need to add up to the total that the cheque (or check) is being written for.

As not all items are taxable and some re-imbursements can cover multiple budget categories, having MLS do it automatically seems a bit haphazard. Presumably it would assume that everything was taxable at the same rate. However, in the big scheme of things this is probably not really material enough to make that big of a difference.

David

Alan_Brown wrote:So are you saying you disagree with my reading of the documentation where I said that you would enter the full $6 tax? Or that I wasn't clear in my answer? Because I definitely think (and wrote) that the documentation says you enter the full tax amount -- MLS will then take care of what to do with half the amount (charge it to the unit) and the other half (effectively reimburse it).

Sorry Alan, I wasn't trying to be disagreeable. I'm just here trying to get some clarification/answers. I'm sure your answer was very clear to you, but was not so clear to me. It's like I often tell people, "everything is easy to understand, when you understand it".

I called the clerk support line earlier today. They had to call me back because they did not know the answer either, even after reading the documentation with me over the phone. After calling back, they confirmed for me that in Canada, we will in fact enter the full tax amount in the tax category when writing a cheque. What happens behind the scenes I will leave to faith, at least for the time being ...

David

ddurocher wrote:In my stake we already have the new tax account in MLS. When we enter an expense now, the budget category (or categories) and the tax amount need to add up to the total that the cheque (or check) is being written for.

Yes, Canada is already on CUBS (according to the wiki article, this happened on 7 July 2010). So the procedures you're following now will not change on August 22. The discussion of an August 22 date is only for stakes in the US (and perhaps other countries) that were recently notified of the specific date for their transition to CUBS.

ddurocher wrote:As not all items are taxable and some re-imbursements can cover multiple budget categories, having MLS do it automatically seems a bit haphazard. Presumably it would assume that everything was taxable at the same rate.

MLS is making no assumptions about the tax rate or what items are taxable. The financial clerk will enter the tax amount as part of the expense. The only thing that MLS calculates in this regard is for Canada, it will calculate one half of the specified tax amount for each expense, and reduce the cost to the unit by one half of the specified tax amount for that expense. That doesn't sound haphazard at all to me.

Since you're already on CUBS and entering these amounts, it sounds to me like you're worrying about a non-issue. Just keep doing what you're doing; you'll see no change on August 22.

ddurocher wrote:Sorry Alan, I wasn't trying to be disagreeable. I'm just here trying to get some clarification/answers.

By no means did I think you were being disagreeable. I was just trying to understand whether my response had not been worded well, or whether you understood but had a different opinion. It sounds like my response wasn't very clear. Hopefully my subsequent post makes that clearer.

Alan_Brown wrote:The discussion of an August 22 date is only for stakes in the US (and perhaps other countries) that were recently notified of the specific date for their transition to CUBS.

According to this thread, there has been a change of schedule.

Alan_Brown wrote:Yes, Canada is already on CUBS (according to the wiki article, this happened on 7 July 2010). So the procedures you're following now will not change on August 22. The discussion of an August 22 date is only for stakes in the US (and perhaps other countries) that were recently notified of the specific date for their transition to CUBS.


MLS is making no assumptions about the tax rate or what items are taxable. The financial clerk will enter the tax amount as part of the expense. The only thing that MLS calculates in this regard is for Canada, it will calculate one half of the specified tax amount for each expense, and reduce the cost to the unit by one half of the specified tax amount for that expense. That doesn't sound haphazard at all to me.

Since you're already on CUBS and entering these amounts, it sounds to me like you're worrying about a non-issue. Just keep doing what you're doing; you'll see no change on August 22.

Yes, but we are seeing changes now and it is not clear to many of the clerks in my stake how we need to deal with them all as of yet. I am getting questions from my stake financial clerk as well as from several units in my stake and I am trying to help them find the answers.

As a stake clerk, I have only had one experience entering expenses since CUBS was downloaded and that was last night. I was working with my financial clerk since MLS now requires two individuals to authorize the printing of cheques.

If you are doing a reimbursement, you do not enter a separate tax amount for each individual expense, at least not that I have seen. The only way I could see to do this would be to write separate cheques for each inidvidual item, which I doubt most clerks would do. For example, say I get a reimbursement request from my stake YW Pres for refresehments for a regional dance and for craft supplies for a YW activity. These would be two separate budget categories or accounts in MLS. However, one is subject to tax (the crafts) while the refreshemnts (depending on what they are) typically would not be taxable. If I enter those two items and the total tax on a single cheque, MLS (or CUBS) cannot know how to correctly apportion the "half" of the tax between these two accounts. This is what I meant by haphazard. Perhaps it would have been better to say, "will not always be accurate in all situations" when cheques are being written. However, as I said before, the error in this scenario would not be material from a Gernerally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) point of view.

David

ddurocher wrote:Yes, but we are seeing changes now and it is not clear to many of the clerks in my stake how we need to deal with them all as of yet. I am getting questions from my stake financial clerk as well as from several units in my stake and I am trying to help them find the answers.

Well, you're ahead of those of us in the US. At least you can see MLS with CUBS in action. But of course, there are also issues unique to Canada. And now it looks like the day when we can see CUBS in action has been delayed.

ddurocher wrote:As a stake clerk, I have only had one experience entering expenses since CUBS was downloaded and that was last night. I was working with my financial clerk since MLS now requires two individuals to authorize the printing of cheques.

That's bad news. As stake financial clerk, I print checks all the time by myself. They still have to be signed by two authorized individuals. Now I'm going to have to drag someone over to the stake office just to get the checks printed???? What a pain!

ddurocher wrote:If you are doing a reimbursement, you do not enter a separate tax amount for each individual expense, at least not that I have seen. The only way I could see to do this would be to write separate cheques for each inidvidual item, which I doubt most clerks would do. For example, say I get a reimbursement request from my stake YW Pres for refresehments for a regional dance and for craft supplies for a YW activity. These would be two separate budget categories or accounts in MLS. However, one is subject to tax (the crafts) while the refreshemnts (depending on what they are) typically would not be taxable. If I enter those two items and the total tax on a single cheque, MLS (or CUBS) cannot know how to correctly apportion the "half" of the tax between these two accounts. This is what I meant by haphazard. Perhaps it would have been better to say, "will not always be accurate in all situations" when cheques are being written. However, as I said before, the error in this scenario would not be material from a Gernerally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) point of view.

Thanks for the example. That makes it a lot clearer to me (although it would really help if I could run it myself). I didn't realize that tax was apportioned to individual budget subaccounts -- that's a change from the current practice that was not clearly documented. You raise a good question, but it's probably not a significant amount of money, so I don't think it will be a big problem.

To quote from Alan's post above regarding needing two people to print checks.

Alan_Brown wrote:That's bad news. As stake financial clerk, I print checks all the time by myself. They still have to be signed by two authorized individuals. Now I'm going to have to drag someone over to the stake office just to get the checks printed???? What a pain!

I sincerely hope that was a misquote on the part of the stake clerk up in Canada. I cannot imagine anything more painful than having to have a second person nearby in order to write a check. For me, and I imagine quite a few other folks, that will entail some real issues. None of my Stake Presidency is in the same ward as I so it will necessarily require an extra evening or time before stake meetings to get check printing done (which takes away from their valuable time).

We may be jumping the gun on this and I certainly hope so. However if this really is a coming feature of CUBS then I intend through my Stake President and Area Seventy to see if we can't get this feature stopped (politely of course with the intent of helping the clerks out rather than making their calling even more difficult). We already have enough security inherant in the system with two signatures needed on a check and approval of either the Stake President in my case or a Bishop for everyone else at ward levels before a check is ever disbursed. Sorry, but this feature of needing two people to print a check just doesn't make sense.

Sorry if I am jumping the gun, but when I read this in the two posts above my heart sunk.

Pilotfly wrote:I sincerely hope that was a misquote on the part of the stake clerk up in Canada. I cannot imagine anything more painful than having to have a second person nearby in order to write a check. For me, and I imagine quite a few other folks, that will entail some real issues. None of my Stake Presidency is in the same ward as I so it will necessarily require an extra evening or time before stake meetings to get check printing done (which takes away from their valuable time).

We may be jumping the gun on this and I certainly hope so. However if this really is a coming feature of CUBS then I intend through my Stake President and Area Seventy to see if we can't get this feature stopped. We already have enough security inherant in the system with two signatures needed on a check and approval of either the Stake President in my case or a Bishop for everyone else at ward levels before a check is ever disbursed. Sorry, but this feature of needing two people to print a check just doesn't make sense.

Sorry if I am jumping the gun, but when I read this in the two posts above my heart sunk.

Nope, not a misquote. Now works just as it does when doing a deposit - you now need two people to authorize printing cheques. Perhaps there have been problems with people forging signatures? I am fortunate that my financial clerk and I are in the same Ward.

A response back from the MLS support desk regarding the issue of having two people present to print checks, gave me the following information;

There was a bug in the new CUBS program that reflected the situation that you have outlined in your message but will be corrected before it is released to the US.

This should be good news to those in the US and hopefully it will also be corrected for our Canadian friends as well.

I got a similar response on my queries to Local Unit Support.

A couple of things:

End of year: As of this hour (and it could change), end of year balance will roll over to next year. This may have some significant effects on stakes that have been reclaiming the end of year budget.

Percentages: It appears it's how much goes to the unit. For example, if you put "80%" for "Ward A" in "Sacrament Meeting Attendance" then 80% of the resulting funding will go to the ward and 20% goes to the stake budget.

techgy wrote:A response back from the MLS support desk regarding the issue of having two people present to print checks, gave me the following information;

There was a bug in the new CUBS program that reflected the situation that you have outlined in your message but will be corrected before it is released to the US.

This should be good news to those in the US and hopefully it will also be corrected for our Canadian friends as well.

We here in Canada are only too happy to be the beta testers for CUBS. Can't wait to download yet another patch!

Alan_Brown wrote:I would think that's a good idea. I've done mine. It seems like we should do everything as normal until the transition date -- that should reduce the number of transition issues we have to resolve.

By no means to I want to encourage laziness but with the new system reconciliations are no longer necessary. I have a branch in my stake that is about a 3 hour drive for me. They have a newly called clerk and I found out that they had not done their reconciliations for 2 years (I've been the stake clerk for almost a year now). I was building up the resolve to head up there and help train this new brother and get the reconciliations done. Then I thought about the fact that with the new system "Leaders will no longer be required to reconcile the statement to MLS". I figured I'd call support first. I was pleasantly surprised when I was told told not to worry about getting this branch caught up, it was not necessary. Wow, it's not often that I get to hear what I want!

So if any of you are in a situation where reconciliations are not up to date, either for your own unit or a unit in your stake, this is non transition issue, but by all means, keep doing your reconciliations!

David

ddurocher wrote:I was pleasantly surprised when I was told told not to worry about getting this branch caught up, it was not necessary.

Interesting. I wondered how things would transition.

If this goes how I think it will, it might not be a bad idea to print off a full listing of all transactions for the year after the last Send/Receive prior to the changeover.

Especially if you've have or had issues where MLS financial records were correct but had to get something on the church side straightened out.

ddurocher wrote:I was pleasantly surprised when I was told told not to worry about getting this branch caught up, it was not necessary.

Interesting. I wondered how things would transition. Especially if you've have or had issues where MLS financial records were correct but had to get something on the church side straightened out.

RussellHltn wrote:End of year: As of this hour (and it could change), end of year balance will roll over to next year. This may have some significant effects on stakes that have been reclaiming the end of year budget.

If you have ever worked with number for any amout of time, you know that you can manipulate percentages make the end result to be any ting you want. Stakes that reclaim unused ward budgets should still be able to reclaim the year-end balance by reducing the percentage for that particular ward to reflect the amount the stake wants to reclaim.

ddurocher wrote:I have a branch in my stake that is about a 3 hour drive for me. They have a newly called clerk and I found out that they had not done their reconciliations for 2 years

I'm wondering how you can go so long with out reconciling your financial statements. Wouldn't an audit point that out at least twice a year?

BroMurray wrote:I'm wondering how you can go so long with out reconciling your financial statements. Wouldn't an audit point that out at least twice a year?

That assumes that the audits were done correctly, at all, or that the corrective action follow-up was done. An audit done in accordance with the checklist and following Church procedures would have identified the difficulty. As I have found in my past experience as an auditor is that the follow-up is the most likely difficulty since it involves a significant amount of time to accomplish. By the time the next audit rolls around the corrective action may not have been completed for a variety of reasons. The problem only gets worse as time goes on unless the unit leadership and stake leadership stay on top of the corrective action.

ddurocher wrote:I was pleasantly surprised when I was told told not to worry about getting this branch caught up, it was not necessary. Wow, it's not often that I get to hear what I want!

So if any of you are in a situation where reconciliations are not up to date, either for your own unit or a unit in your stake, this is non transition issue, but by all means, keep doing your reconciliations!

Being slightly paranoid by nature (and a stake clerk), I don't quite trust this. I would make reconcile before the transition. I visit my units twice a year as specified in the Church Handbook (longest distance 3.0 hours round trip, shortest distance 45 minutes round trip) and I always check that they've done reconciliations and teach them how to do them if they haven't (I'm surprised how many people forget how to do them).

Rick

rwinterton wrote:Being slightly paranoid by nature (and a stake clerk), I don't quite trust this. I would make reconcile before the transition.

I understand what you are saying. I suspect reconciling in and of itself isn't as important as uncovering any errors and correcting them prior to the change-over. But of course, that's how you discover any errors. The books on MLS may look fine, but what's going to count is what the church records have.

there has always been a difference between the stake financial summary and what the balance amount wards have been allocated. I believe it hasn't jived for many years. Question when CUBS rolls in what will be the current balance amount each ward has? Hopes this make sense.

farwest wrote:there has always been a difference between the stake financial summary and what the balance amount wards have been allocated. I believe it hasn't jived for many years. Question when CUBS rolls in what will be the current balance amount each ward has? Hopes this make sense.

Just a clarification first. The SFS knows nothing about a ward's budget and remaining balance. It just reports total ward expenses for the "billing cycle" (it is NOT always the first of the month the the last of the month). So rather than comparing balances, you are comparing total expenses (expenses - income - transfers).

I see a couple questions in this one. Here are my replies.

1. What will the total expenses be - the current MLS value in the budget report or the value from the SFS? The first question to answer is which value is correct. Definitely the SFS. The MLS value is a reflection of what the clerk(s) have entered and therefore is subject to error. If all credits, expenses and voids are properly accounted for (and you pay attention to dates when running your budget report and comparing it to the SFS) the two should match exactly. More below if you're interested.
2. Another potential question: what will each ward's assigned budget be? I don't think we know. I'd assume that, after entering the percentages, the wards will be allotted that percentage from the first 3 disbursements automatically. However, I can't say for sure
3. A final potential question: There have been many times the reports have not matched MLS. If I wanted to now make them match, how far back should I go? This shouldn't be much of a problem because, at least up to this point, total ward expenses started at $0 each year on the SFS. If this is in fact an issue, you would only need to worry about 2010. The main thing to worry about before CUBS is credits. You will still be able to enter expenses but I'm making sure my wards have all entered their credits before the switch.

To make your SFS and budget report match, here are some tricks I've learned. First, saying there is always a difference may be overstating it. All my wards' MLS budget reports exactly match the SFS, but that's because I put a lot of effort into making sure they do. If you did want to make them match, I've discovered three common issues.

1. Make sure all transactions in the miscellaneous section are accounted for. Automatic payments to entities like Staples or the Distribution Center need to be entered. When entering, use the date indicated in your CUFS as that is the date when the expense is applied when generating the SFS. Credits for returned items should be entered but credits for category switches should not.
2. If you void a check that was issued in a previous year, MLS credits the previous year while the SFS and the CUFS credit this year's budget. You therefore need to add a credit for the amount of the voided check using the info in the "Voided Checks" section of your CUFS. Again, this is only for voided checks from a previous year. The process for doing this can be found here.
3. Dates matter! When running your budget report, only include the dates that info appears on your CUFS. For example, Feb 28 was a Sunday. Because it was the last day of the month, it was not included in the Feb CUFS. It appears on the Mar CUFS. Here are the dates to use for the first 6 months:
   • Jan 1 - Jan 30
   • Jan 31 - Feb 27
   • Feb 28 - Mar 31
   • Apr 1 - Apr 30
   • May 1 - May 30 (might be able to go to May 31)
   • May 31 - Jun 30 (might be able to start at Jun 1)

As an aside, the main reason for making sure the total expenses in MLS match the SFS is to ensure wards do not spend more money than they have been allotted. While it is possible to reconcile successfully without entering the automatic payments (Staples, distribution center), it falsely inflates the remaining budget balance. Towards the end of the year this means wards will think they have more money than they actually do and potentially overspend their budget. Have enough wards in the stake do that, and you will end up owing CHQ money from your next year's budget.

crislapi wrote:2. If you void a check that was issued in a previous year, MLS credits the previous year while the SFS and the CUFS credit this year's budget. You therefore need to add a credit for the amount of the voided check using the info in the "Voided Checks" section of your CUFS. Again, this is only for voided checks from a previous year. The process for doing this can be found here.

Thanks for the detailed explanation of why the SFS and MLS will differ. I would just add one note to extend your point 2 above. If you are comparing MLS and the SFS on a monthly basis, then you should be aware that voided checks will lead to differences between MLS and the SFS. MLS will treat a voided check as 0 in the month it was written, because both the check and the transfer that sets the value to 0 both have the date of the original check. But the SFS will have the check in its original month, and the transfer in whatever month it was finally processed at CHQ.

Also, any category or amount adjustments made to expenses or donations can create similar discrepancies (a returned donor check, moving a donation or expense from Budget to Other, etc.). Again, MLS dates the adjustments with the original transaction, but the SFS dates them with the date the adjustment was processed at CHQ.

All these factors (in addition to all those that crislapi mentioned) need to be considered if you want to reconcile the MLS and the SFS. In my experience, they always match, once you take all that into account. But many clerks ignore (or are not aware of) these issues, so they think the numbers just don't match.

crislapi wrote:Dates matter! When running your budget report, only include the dates that info appears on your CUFS. ... Here are the dates to use for the first 6 months (of 2010):

I got May wrong. Here are the updated dates:

• Jan 1 - Jan 30
• Jan 31 - Feb 27
• Feb 28 - Mar 31
• Apr 1 - Apr 30
• May 1 - May 29
• May 30 - Jun 30

mlh78 wrote:In our stake we have mulled over the idea of just having the wards send a check to the stake for the balance of their budget at the end of the year. I sure hope that this new system affords stakes continued flexibility in how they allocate budgets.

See this post.

BroMurray wrote:Should we reconcile our July statement before the 15th?

Just an update, but reconciliations will have to be up-to-date before switching to CUBS. I don't think they won't switch you if they are not, but the new instructions will specifically say (in bold, underlined text) "make sure your reconciliations are up to date."

Having been both a stake and ward clerk for years, I am amazed at the fear I sense in the stake "losing strict control" over ward budgets, from a desire to circumvent or manipulate the percentage system being designed to an ability to seize control of excess ward funds at the end of the year. There seems to be a reluctance to change and to let go.

The work of shepherding the members clearly takes place at the ward levels. It seems that the Brethren are reflecting that in the new budgeting process. Just because the stake can find ways to manipulate the system doesn't mean they should. Some of the threads here that point out how to manipulate the system would seem counterproductive to the values being expounded: that of letting the bishops direct their wards and oversee their finances.

The stake will always have the ability to monitor the stewardship of the Lord's funds through biannual audits where they can review all accounts.

Carrying over end-of-year funds at the ward level is something new to stakes that have enjoyed that ability for a few decades. But some stake leaders now fear giving the wards the same authority--mostly out of a desire for stake use of those monies.

Something similar happened when the primary responsibility for missionary work was moved down to the wards. Stakes had a hard time letting go and many continued to function as they had before the Brethren's direction, fearing bishops would certainly not be up to the task without their continued direct supervision.

Change is a difficult thing when new (or not so new) precepts are being instituted. In this case, responsibilities are being delegated closer to the level where most of the work of the Church takes place: at the ward level. Stakes must let their ward children grow up. The stake role in oversight will not disappear, it just takes on a different meaning.