One check from multi categories?

Last week I wrote a check where part of the money came from Budget and part came from an "other" category. Is this legit? I didn't think we could do this before.
Thanks,
Alan

funaddict wrote:Last week I wrote a check where part of the money came from Budget and part came from an "other" category. Is this legit? I didn't think we could do this before.

MLS let you do it? We have not tried this. We do write checks from the same major category (Budget, for example) with different subcategories (YM and YW, for example) all the time.

I tried this a month ago and it wouldn't let me. If it in fact let you do that, it is likely a bug that will not stick around long.

MLS requires checks from an "Other" category to be cut separately. They cannot be combined with any other account.

Two weeks ago I needed to write a check to the Stake for some late arriving Girls Camp money. In addition, the Bishop, due to financial hardship, had authorized the payment of two camp fees from Budget funds. So the check to the Stake needed to come partially from Other:AMFA:Girls Camp and from Budget:Administration.

Based on experience, I was guessing MLS was going to force me to write two checks. On a whim I decided to give writing one check a try. MLS let me write one check pulling money from these two different categories.

Everything looks properly handled in MLS on my end. Of course, I don't know if the check will clear without a problem yet - as it has only been two weeks since I wrote it.

I'm running MLS 3.3.1_19756.

Yes, this is pretty much what happened to me. I had two separate reimbursement requests for one member, and even though they were from "budget" and "other" categories, on a whim I tried one check and it went through with no problems. We'll see if it carries on.

I checked my May statement today and my multi-category (Budget & Other) check cleared and is accounted for properly, including listing the check in both the Budget and Other sections of the statement with the partial amount for each category.

It would appear that writing checks from different major categories is now supported.

ckmcdonald wrote:It would appear that writing checks from different major categories is now supported.

Thanks for confirming this. It really does make sense that CUBS would support this, given the way that units record sales tax in certain areas. Checks that include sales tax will have a category of Budget and a category of Reimbursable Expenses:<locale> Sales Tax. So it's standard procedure in those areas to write checks from two different major categories, and so combining Other and Budget is no different.

Is this instruction correct and adequate from a Stake Clerk to The Stake YW leaders:
Thanks

Procedure for handling YW Camp fees

The Handbook of Instructions explains that each auxiliary organization is to operate on an annual approved budget. All expenses are to be paid from that budget. If there is not enough money for a purposed activity, then the activity should to be trimmed to stay within the budget. There is one exception: we may hold a fundraiser for one camp experience per year.

We are instructed that only the extra dollars needed are to be raised. And that money is to be used for the specific purpose for which it was collected. So this camp money raised by the youth isn’t budget money, it is called AMFA (Authorized Member Financed Activity) money, which is put into the Other Account with the subcategory “YW Camp”

The wards collect All camp money. As each camper earns her money and pays her fee, she fills out a Tithing and Offering slip. She fills in her name and address and writes “YW Camp” on the OTHER line and fills in the dollar amount. She hands the envelope to a member of the Bishopric just as with tithing.

When the ward sends this money to the stake, the ward writes one check to cover all girls, payable to “LDS Stake”, from the AMFA Other subcategory called “YW Camp” and sends it to the Stake President. The Ward Finance Clerk will also include with the check, an accurate report with each girl’s name and dollar amount.

This is eerily similar to my messaging from the Stake though our messaging comes through a member of the Stake Presidency. It is right out of the handbook where the point is very clear that fund raising should not be the NORM.

We differ a bit on the last paragraph - our Stake Leaders, based on registration, tell me how much to expect from each Ward/Branch - I then send out an assessment to serve as the expense request from the Ward/Branch - at the Stake Level we do not track girls individually - that is left to the Wards.

We have a strict no-returns policy at the stake, and allow the wards to refund as they like (technically the dollars were spent regardless of whether a girl attends or not) Stake President informs Bishops/Branch Presidents that money in these situations is NEVER a reason to cause a stumbling block - refund, refund, refund, if only to allow for the tender mercies of a kid or family not to be hurt in any way.

I'm not a big fan of the line 'earns her money and pays her fee' as the handbook very specifically mentions paying fees for participating in church is a no-no.

I've found that many leaders mistakenly associate this camp process with a Welfare process. First yourself, Then your family, then the church.... that is backwards when it comes to budget items.

You better have a darn good budgetary issue to make a family pay extra for a camp (girls or boys)... that's all I got to say... We need a little more Joseph Smith version of common consent in some of these areas.

The only problem I have with it is it appears the Stake is funding the camp from funds which is held back from the wards. The handbook is very clear in uses the term "ward budget" and "Bishop" when it comes to determining if there is sufficient funds to cover the costs.

I have always had a problem with the stake taking budget allowance from the wards to fund camps as it takes options away from the bishops on funding camps. It makes more sense for the stake camp leaders to determine the individual participant cost for camp and then assess this cost to the wards. That way the wards can determine whether they can fund all the cost from the LUBA, individual participant sharing, fund raiser, or all three options. Of course this would mean that the stake does not hold the cost of camp from the ward budget allowance.

JohnShaw wrote:I'm not a big fan of the line 'earns her money and pays her fee' as the handbook very specifically mentions paying fees for participating in church is a no-no.

If we're talking about the one annual camp, then the handbook very specifically mentions this very option as what is to be done if budget funds are insufficient: "If the ward budget does not have sufficient funds to pay for the following activities, leaders may ask participants to pay for part or all of them." See Handbook 2, Section 13.2.8. You're right that paying fees for participation is generally a no-no, but this is a specific exception mentioned in the handbook to that general policy.