New check stock with only a single signature?

Our ward just opened the latest batch of blank check stock, and we were surprised to find that the checks have only a single signature block. Historically the checks have had blocks for two signatures, and both were required.

Is this a change in policy, or an error in printing?

boomerbubba wrote:Our ward just opened the latest batch of blank check stock, and we were surprised to find that the checks have only a single signature block. Historically the checks have had blocks for two signatures, and both were required.

Is this a change in policy, or an error in printing?

The last time this happened to us, we called the Finance Department, and they said it was a misprint. That was many years ago. Times may have changed. I would get confirmation before I used them, however. Were there any instructions in the box?

I don't think this policy has changed - they still use the law of witnesses when it comes to finances. Very likely a misprint.

lajackson wrote:The last time this happened to us, we called the Finance Department, and they said it was a misprint. That was many years ago. Times may have changed. I would get confirmation before I used them, however. Were there any instructions in the box?

Our stake just received new check stock, and it also has only one signature line. So it's either a new policy (I doubt it) or a more widespread mistake in printing (that's my guess).

The notice in the box simply said that if there were any errors to contact our provider.

Alan_Brown wrote:Our stake just received new check stock, and it also has only one signature line. So it's either a new policy (I doubt it) or a more widespread mistake in printing (that's my guess).

The notice in the box simply said that if there were any errors to contact our provider.

I called Finance support yesterday. They said it was a misprint. They are expediting a new batch. Hope it arrives soon.

p.s. I meant to post this feedback last night, but the tech.lds.org servers were down.

boomerbubba wrote:Our ward just opened the latest batch of blank check stock, and we were surprised to find that the checks have only a single signature block. Historically the checks have had blocks for two signatures, and both were required.

Is this a change in policy, or an error in printing?

Seems widespread. We just got a batch of single-line checks too.

86Bengal wrote:Seems widespread. We just got a batch of single-line checks too.

Is it Ok to use the checks and put two signatures on them, or do we just need to wait until new checks arrive.

And do we each need to call in and let them know we got single line checks?

Inquiring minds . . .

lajackson wrote:Is it Ok to use the checks and put two signatures on them, or do we just need to wait until new checks arrive.

And do we each need to call in and let them know we got single line checks?

I would guess that the answer to the second question is yes, you need to call and report the error. Be prepared for a long wait listening to hymns.

As for whether it is okay to use the checks, we already did out of necessity on Sunday, and I called on Monday. I asked the same question, and was told, "You're going to want to use the new checks, not the old ones."

Since that was not definitive -- what I want is not the issue -- I kicked the decision to the Bishop last night when we needed to write two more emergency checks. We wrote them.

In all cases, we have signed the checks with two signatures, even though there is only one signature line.

boomerbubba wrote:I would guess that the answer to the second question is yes, you need to call and report the error. Be prepared for a long wait listening to hymns.

In this situation, I'd fire off an email via MLS. I don't see a benefit to the call.

boomerbubba wrote:

lajackson wrote:Is it Ok to use the checks and put two signatures on them, or do we just need to wait until new checks arrive.

And do we each need to call in and let them know we got single line checks?

I would guess that the answer to the second question is yes, you need to call and report the error. Be prepared for a long wait listening to hymns.

I'm not saying this is actually true in anyway, but I wouldn't be surprised if CHQ can somehow identify the "batch" of bad checks and automatically resend them to the affected units. However, better to be safe than sorry, and either call or perhaps MLS message as RussellHltn suggested.

RussellHltn wrote:In this situation, I'd fire off an email via MLS. I don't see a benefit to the call.

I have waited weeks without a reply to support requests sent via the MLS messaging system. At least with a phone call, even through it takes one or two hours of ear-punishiing wait time during working hours, we can get some kind of response.

Being without checks is actually a pretty urgent crisis. We are a huge ward, with urban demographics and a lot of fast-offering-assistance checks. When checks don't get written in a timely way, people can get eviction notices, have their utilities cut off, or miss medication. And of course right now we have end-of-year budget reimbursements and expenditures for the Christmas party, etc. for significant amounts.

A complication is that the just-in-time automated check replenishment system does not work well for us because our check-writing volume is so large. The new batches of checks don't get triggered in time for a cushion of overlap.

boomerbubba wrote:I have waited weeks without a reply to support requests sent via the MLS messaging system.

Wow, that must be a recent trend. Wasn't that way before the recently heavier load of support calls.

mkmurray wrote:Wow, that must be a recent trend. Wasn't that way before the recently heavier load of support calls.

It's certainly not just recent in my experience. Maybe it's worse recently, but I can't say for sure. Maybe it's better in Utah:rolleyes:

Seriously, I would never trust an urgent matter to the MLS messaging system.

boomerbubba wrote:Our ward just opened the latest batch of blank check stock, and we were surprised to find that the checks have only a single signature block.

boomerbubba wrote:I called Finance support yesterday. They said it was a misprint. They are expediting a new batch. Hope it arrives soon.

boomerbubba wrote:As for whether it is okay to use the checks, we already did out of necessity on Sunday

boomerbubba wrote:Being without checks is actually a pretty urgent crisis.

Use the checks and put two signatures on them. Just be careful not to use the same check numbers when the new checks arrive. When the new checks arrive remove the already used checks and cut the MICR account number off the bottom off the checks rendering them useless and write a description of duplicate check stock.

We just received our new checks, it can be seen very clearly the second signature line was not part of the original printing of the checks. The checks where run through a second printing process to add the second signature line.

boomerbubba wrote:A complication is that the just-in-time automated check replenishment system does not work well for us because our check-writing volume is so large. The new batches of checks don't get triggered in time for a cushion of overlap.

Request new checks in advance when they are appropriately needed.

kh_design wrote:Request new checks in advance when they are appropriately needed.

I think you are right about that. We will need to proactively revert to the old, non-automated way of replenishing checks. I just hope Finance Support will accept phone requests from a finance clerk without bothering the bishop to make the onerous call. It used to be that only the bishop could make such a request, but Salt Lake did act on my own emergency call reporting the misprint problem. Perhaps our ward will be split someday, in which case the replenishment problem would probably go away.

One other odd thing about the recent batch of checks: The bishop said that unlike normal check shipments that require his signature to accept delivery, this package was just left at his door. Along with the other reports of misprinted checks, it sounds like there may be some general problem with the supplier.

mkmurray wrote:Wow, that must be a recent trend. Wasn't that way before the recently heavier load of support calls.

No, it has always been that way for me. About 1 in 3 messages are never answered, and of the other 2, one answer will not address the original question and require a followup.

I do tend to ask more complicated questions because most of the simple ones, or at least the ones I have control over, I get answered other places, including at this forum.

lajackson wrote:Is it Ok to use the checks and put two signatures on them, or do we just need to wait until new checks arrive.

I sent in a message yesterday morning about this and got the following reply:

This is an error in the system. We have ordered the checks with two signature lines. Please have the unit shred the checks with the single signature line.

kh_design wrote:Request new checks in advance when they are appropriately needed.

Good idea but be a little careful... We ordered early in our ward and for some reason, maybe because of the narrow gap between when we manually ordered and when we hit the automatic order threshold, we were sent two boxes of checks (a few weeks apart). The surprising thing was that the two boxes were appropriately numbered in sequence (not duplicates). Anyway, now no one can accuse us of not have our 2-year supply of check!

crislapi wrote:I sent in a message yesterday morning about this and got the following reply:

Following up on my post, the new checks with 2 signature lines never came. We did get an MLS message recently that said to just make sure each check had 2 signatures. I still had the message with instructions to shred so I called LUS today for clarification and was told that there were so many units with these incorrect checks that it would be too expensive to reprint and mail out replacements for all the affected units. Therefore, they have instructed those affected to use the checks with a single signature line BUT the checks must still be signed twice.