Check printed without 2nd approval

[atempaj]

Quick question. I’m a stake auditor, and during my audit for a ward I found that the system was allowing a printing of a check without the need of a second approval. It was a check for a fast offering fund. The system documented that the submitter and the 2nd approval was the same person. In the situation I witnessed I found that the clerk was able to submit the check request and the documentation showed him as the submitter and 2nd approval. This shouldn’t be possible; please advise. Thanks.

[eblood66]

I assume that the expense did not have any documentation uploaded. In that case the system assumes that there is paper documentation which should be reviewed by each check signer before signing. This is how the system is designed to work for cases when (for whatever reason) electronic documentation can't be provided.

As an auditor you generally assume that if the check was signed by two people, that they each reviewed the documentation. But if you are concerned, you can ask the signers to verify that they did.

[bhyde01]

Expenses that are paid via check can be submitted and approved all by the same leader because a check is signed by two different leaders thus meeting the requirements of two approvers. So the expense that you attached met the requirements of the audit.

[jdellsworth]

This has occurred to me more than once this year as a bishop where after entering and approving an expense, LCR did not require a secondary approval. The first time I mentioned to the Stake Presidency counselor over audits. It was for a check, so the signatures were documented as the second approval. When you pull the transaction details, it showed entered by, approved by, bishop's review by...all with my name. But a different transaction was for EFT and we didn't have documentation for a secondary approval, so we reported it as a finding on our audit. Best practice there would be to print off something and file an approval from a second individual. It's a bug in the software.