Finance User Group
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday November 28, 2012
Meeting: Finance User Group
Date:
Wednesday November 28, 2012
Start Time: 9:30 a.m.
End Time:
4:30 p.m.
Location:
Wells Fargo Place – Saint Paul
conf room# 3304
Participants:
College & University:
Derek Guiher
John Palmer
Roy Trousdell
Bonnie Meyers
Dee Bernard
Shannon Jesme
Ruth Siefert
Jeff Wagner
Twyla Tinney
Dave Thorn
Al Finlayson
Dawn Belko
Mark Rice
Chair: Mike Nordby (System Office – Financial Reporting Unit)
Recorder:
Note:
Normandale
Saint Paul College
Hennepin Tech
Century College
Inver Hills Community College
Northland
Rochester CTC
St Cloud State University
Minnesota State University, Mankato
Winona State
Lake Superior College
North Hennepin CC
Minnesota State University, Moorhead
System Office:
Anderson, Susan
Bednarz, Deb
Blanchard, Nicole
Froysland, Kathy
Gednalske, Steve
Gillson, Roger
Munson, Craig
Kirkeby, Denise
Lund, Dave
Page, Ann
Thao, Ge
Welter, Teri
Yang, Maichoua
Financial Planning & Analysis
Financial Planning & Analysis
Campus Assistance
ITS
Tax Services
ITS
ITS Security
Financial Reporting
ITS
Tax Services
Campus Assistance
ITS
Campus Assistance
Special Guests:
Heidi Myers (System Office Facilites Unit)
Unable to attend:
Ron Beckstrom (Metropolitan State University); Cheryl Norlien (Ridgewater College)
Updates from July Discussion
TOPIC
DISCUSSION NOTES
Tuition Differential Coding
The FUG reviewed a draft survey that will be sent out to System institutions in December.
(Deb Bednarz and Ge Thao)
Attendees were asked to share further comments and suggestions with Deb Bednarz or Susan
th
Anderson by December 7 .
System Wide Holds
Non-credit registrations and Financial Holds
The financial hold types 0015 (manual hold) and 0073 (Write-off) are currently preventing
registration for non-credit courses while the 0031 (Unpaid balance) code is being ignored by the
course registration program. To reduce confusion for students and Business Offices, the course
registration program will be changed to allow the non-credit registration to occur for all three
hold types.
(Mike Nordby)
FY 2014 Workplan
Resolving the confusion around the many processes involved in the system-wide hold is a priority for
Finance Division leadership for the 2014 work plan.
Expect discussion on business rules and project requirements at February FUG meeting.
12/13/201210:06 AM
Page 1 of 4
Updates from July Discussion (Cont.)
TOPIC
DISCUSSION NOTES
Small Contract Efficiencies
Reviewed Draft procedure and invoice examples.
(Steve Gednalske)
FUG members are encouraged to send further feedback to Steve Gednalske during the week
following the meeting. (See meeting documents)
FY 2013 Workplan Updates
TOPIC
Update on the FY 2013
Finance Projects
DISCUSSION NOTES
Roger gave an update on the 2013 IT Finance development workplan projects.
•
See “FUG Work Plan 11-2012” excel document for current projects and status.
(Roger Gillson)
Updates on Active Projects
and Workgroups:
(Business Analysts)
Accounting Module Upgrades (Teri Welter)
•
See meeting documents for handouts.
•
Presented a summary of the changes to be rolled out on December 6.
•
Shared the list of remaining enhancements as prioritized by the project task force. “Low
Benefit/High Effort” items not likely to make it to during the available time for the project.
MNDOR Interface Project (Kathy Froysland)
•
Shared mock ups of the screens developed for the program.
•
Expected completion in February.
EQ Module Redesign (Dave Lund)
•
Pilot to be released December 6.
•
Expected completion in February.
Unifier Module Replacement (Dave Lund)
•
A new addition to the Finance IT Development workplan.
•
Heidi Myers from Facilities joined the FUG to describe the replacement project and answer
questions.
•
Unifier is being replaced due to functionality and cost.
•
The replacement project charter is currently in draft form. Sub task force teams will be
consulted to identify the business needs for the constituent groups. (Including Financial
users.)
•
Jeff Wagner (SCSU) volunteered for the Finance sub task force. Dave Lund had previously
accepted invitation.
12/13/201210:06 AM
Page 2 of 4
Discussion Items
TOPIC
RCFN Impact on Receivables
(Introduced by Al Finlayson)
DISCUSSION NOTES
Discussion was held by FUG on the trend of growing receivables.
•
Factors discussed:
o Is the RCFN process accomplishing what it was designed to do? Are changes to the
program necessary?
o Is the Students First initiative complete? There were more projects planned at the
initiative’s beginning.
•
By consensus, the FUG decided that the factors leading to increased receivable balances
need to be quantified in order to decide on appropriate system enhancements.
•
A workgroup is needed to analyze the receivable data and report back to the FUG in
February.
Accounts Receivable Analysis Workgroup
•
Task:
o Design queries and analyze data to identify factors that make up lingering accounts
receivable balances.
o Draft recommendations based on analysis and report back to the Finance User Group
in February.
•
Members:
o 6 Accounts Receivable subject matter experts.
•
Kathy Dugdale (LSC)
•
Dave Thorn (WSU)
•
Lisa Pozanc (SE Tech)
•
Other volunteers and nominations can notify Metody Popov or Mike Nordby.
o 1 person from Financial Reporting Unit.
•
Metody Popov (System Office)
o ITS Business Analyst and Research and Data specialist will be sought to provide further
support to the workgroup.
Procedure 7.6.2 Changes
Review
(Mike Nordby)
FUG Recommendations:
•
Part 4 sub A: Rather than adding language that would allow a non-ISRS module to be used
to record receivables, they recommended eliminating the sentence that requires the
receivable be entered into ISRS at the time the account is first established.
•
Part 4 sub D: No changes to the proposed changes.
•
Part 4 sub G: No objection to clarifying application fees as unearned until the fee is paid.
The group recommended changing the term “canceling” accounts receivable to “removing”
accounts receivable. Canceling did not seem like the correct use of the term in the
procedure.
See meeting documents for draft with the FUG’s recommendations.
12/13/201210:06 AM
Page 3 of 4
Discussion Items (Cont.)
TOPIC
Handling Bad Debt From
MSUSA Fees
(introduced by Jeff Wagner)
DISCUSSION NOTES
Per the contract with MSUSA, fees due to the organization are based on credits enrolled. This fee is
usually collected and paid out of Agency funds (LSO appropriation) since it is not considered an
asset of the institution. When fee remains unpaid by the student, the institution will run a
negative balance in that cost center.
Discussion by the FUG:
•
Should the negative balance remain in LSO?
o No, any lingering unpaid charge should be moved to GEN per Financial Reporting
Instructions.
•
Should the MSUSA fee be set up in GEN appropriation since unpaid charges become an
operational expense?
o No consensus at the meeting but Financial Reporting Unit will look into the
process and update accounting procedures if necessary.
Update on VISA to Allow
Service Charges
Dave Lund contacted US Bank about the recent VISA announcement. US Bank’s system can likely
support the charging of a service fee.
The FUG discussion highlights:
•
FY 2012 Total payment card fees were $1.7 million system-wide.
•
The charging of a credit card fee would likely drive students to the E-check option, which
are less costly to process.
•
Could there be some concern about accessibility by increasing the fee? (Campus and
System Leadership discussion necessary.)
Role of FUG in determining
Finance IT Workplan
The FUG discussion highlights:
•
(Denise Kirkeby)
•
•
•
User groups (or other campus staff groups) should be notified of system changes with
ample time to provide feedback. (Brought up when discussing the recent change in the
Security Application to prevent Approval Managers from approving their own security
roles.)
Duplicated work should be avoided. Effort should be made to ensure groups that are
working on finance and related modules and procedures are in communication with the
Finance User Group so coordination can be achieved when needed.
Such opportunities may present themselves when the Campus Service Cooperative begins
initiatives. Campus Service Cooperative should have an open invitation to update the FUG
each meeting.
Communication was also brought up among the CFOs at the CFO conference on November
th
29 . Some attendees did not feel up to date on the workplan of the Finance IT
development team and the Finance User Group. Sending out regular updates to the CFOs
via email was brought up as a solution. As well as having an update item at the monthly
CFO conference call. Those options will be explored.
2013 Finance User Group Meeting Schedule:
February 7, 2013
May 30, 2013
July 11, 2013
November 7, 2013
Please Note: In February, the FUG will discuss the group’s project prioritization recommendations for the FY 2014 ITS
workplan. To be considered, system enhancement requests should be sent to the ITS helpdesk no later than January 4,
2013.
12/13/201210:06 AM
Page 4 of 4