Australia - New Zealand (ANZ)

Dear Colleagues

I am writing to you to find out how your institution manages the remission of HECS liabilities, particularly where the remission has been approved prior to DEEWR file submission.

DEEWR requires that we first report units of study (courses) in the Load Liability file with associated liabilities.
http://www.heimshelp.deewr.gov.au/17_File_Structures_and_Scopes/1_Scope_Document/Pages/2011_Scope_Document_pages/Revisions.htm


"b) Remission due to special circumstances
Details of remissions must always be provided to DEEWR via the Student Revisions Submission. If the remission is processed prior to the original Load/Liability record being provided to DEEWR in the Student Submission, the details of the remission must be reported to DEEWR in a Revision Submission as soon as possible after the submission of the relevant Student Submission. "

We created a drop Action Reason of REMS which allows a WW to be retained against the student record so that it appears on a transcript and shows a true record of when the student withdrew from their course. The REMS Action Reason also allows the charges to be backed out.

It is the timing of this process that is causing an issue. If a REMS drop is processed and charges backed out before data are sent to DEEWR the course is included in the Load Liability file but E384 (Charge) is zero.

I would like hear from institutions that have a process in place that allows both a WW to be retained and a fee to be reported where a remission has been processed prior to the DEEWR submission being submitted.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards

Julie



JulieTalevski
Student Data Collection Analyst
Systems and Projects
University of Newcastle NSW 2308 Australia
Phone +61 2 4921 6376 Fax = 61 2 4921 6937
email: julie.talevski@newcastle.edu.au

Hi Julie,

At USC, we do not make any adjustment to the original charges in Student Financials for remitted records.  In order to track the students with remissions, we use an administrative grade (WR) which has recently been created. 

However, where students have made an upfront payment, we have created two Item Types so a refund can be processed.  The first Item type is a waiver which creates a credit on the account and the second item type is the refund item type.  These work okay in principle, but we have a lot of problems with the waiver shuffling across terms when a student enrols in future semesters.  When the waiver moves across terms, the waiver amount is deducted from the charge amount for that term and we then end up with the same type of problem in the Load Liability file, with the E384 charge reporting as zero.  

This has been creating quite a few issues for us recently, so if you can find a manageable solution, we'd love to hear it too.

Regards,

Jo

Hello Jo

Thanks for getting back to me.

There certainly does not appear to be an easy way around this. I will discuss your methodology with our SF team and see if there's something we can use.

Many thanks

Cheers

Julie

>>> On 30/05/2011 at 14:22, in message <heug.190015@list.heug.org>, Joanne Davey <jdavey@usc.edu.au> wrote:

Hi Julie,
At USC, we do not make any adjustment to the original charges in Student Financials for remitted records. In order to track the students with remissions, we use an administrative grade (WR) which has recently been created.
However, where students have made an upfront payment, we have created two Item Types so a refund can be processed. The first Item type is a waiver which creates a credit on the account and the second item type is the refund item type. These work okay in principle, but we have a lot of problems with the waiver shuffling across terms when a student enrols in future semesters. When the waiver moves across terms, the waiver amount is deducted from the charge amount for that term and we then end up with the same type of problem in the Load Liability file, with the E384 charge reporting as zero.
This has been creating quite a few issues for us recently, so if you can find a manageable solution, we'd love to hear it too.
Regards,
Jo
Site Links: View post online ( http://www.heug.org/p/fo/st/post=190015&anc=p190015#p190015 ) View mailing list online ( http://www.heug.org/p/fo/si/topic=901 ) Send new post via email ( mailto:anz.heug@list.heug.org ) Unsubscribe from this mailing list ( mailto:anz.heug+unsubscribe@list.heug.org?Subject=Unsubscribe ) Manage your subscription ( http://www.heug.org/p/us/to/ )

HEUG.Online supported in part by:
140 W2 Employees and a GSA Schedule
www.erpanalysts.com

Use of this email content is governed by the terms of service at:
http://www.heug.org/index.php?module=sthtml&op=load&sid=s1_010_tos

Hi Julie,
At UQ, we run our DEEWR reporting from a separate database (SA89DEST) which is quarantined from the Production system a few weeks prior to reporting the data to DEEWR. We try to avoid processing remissions for the current reporting round until we quarantine SA89DEST, and at that point they are only processed on Production. Thus the census date load and charges are always retained in the SA89DEST database to report to DEEWR, even if they are removed from the Production system.
In circumstances where we do need to process remissions before the databases are separated, we re-add the load and the charges back into our SA89DEST environment after separation.
Hope this helps,
Suzanna

Suzanna Wong
Business Analyst, SI-net Functional Group
The University of Queensland
Brisbane QLD 4072 Australia
CRICOS Provider Number 00025B

Ph: +61 7 3365 7213
Email: s.wong7@uq.edu.au<mailto:s.wong7@uq.edu.au>

Unless otherwise stated, this email represents only the views of the Sender and not the views of The University of Queensland.
[cid:image001.jpg@01CC1F7C.2ED7EB90]

From: Julie Talevski [mailto:julie.talevski@newcastle.edu.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2011 8:41 AM
To: anz.heug@list.heug.org
Subject: [anz.heug] - RE: DEEWR Remissions

Hello Jo

Thanks for getting back to me.

There certainly does not appear to be an easy way around this. I will discuss your methodology with our SF team and see if there's something we can use.

Many thanks

Cheers

Julie

>>> On 30/05/2011 at 14:22, in message <heug.190015@list.heug.org>, Joanne Davey <jdavey@usc.edu.au> wrote:

Hi Julie,

At USC, we do not make any adjustment to the original charges in Student Financials for remitted records. In order to track the students with remissions, we use an administrative grade (WR) which has recently been created.

However, where students have made an upfront payment, we have created two Item Types so a refund can be processed. The first Item type is a waiver which creates a credit on the account and the second item type is the refund item type. These work okay in principle, but we have a lot of problems with the waiver shuffling across terms when a student enrols in future semesters. When the waiver moves across terms, the waiver amount is deducted from the charge amount for that term and we then end up with the same type of problem in the Load Liability file, with the E384 charge reporting as zero.

This has been creating quite a few issues for us recently, so if you can find a manageable solution, we'd love to hear it too.

Regards,

Jo

-----End Original Message-----

-----End Original Message-----

No!



From: Suzanna Wong [mailto:s.wong7@uq.edu.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2011 10:20 AM
To: anz.heug@list.heug.org
Subject: [anz.heug] - RE: DEEWR Remissions

Hi Julie,
At UQ, we run our DEEWR reporting from a separate database (SA89DEST) which is quarantined from the Production system a few weeks prior to reporting the data to DEEWR. We try to avoid processing remissions for the current reporting round until we quarantine SA89DEST, and at that point they are only processed on Production. Thus the census date load and charges are always retained in the SA89DEST database to report to DEEWR, even if they are removed from the Production system.
In circumstances where we do need to process remissions before the databases are separated, we re-add the load and the charges back into our SA89DEST environment after separation.
Hope this helps,
Suzanna

Suzanna Wong
Business Analyst, SI-net Functional Group
The University of Queensland
Brisbane QLD 4072 Australia
CRICOS Provider Number 00025B

Ph: +61 7 3365 7213
Email: s.wong7@uq.edu.au<mailto:s.wong7@uq.edu.au>

Unless otherwise stated, this email represents only the views of the Sender and not the views of The University of Queensland.
[cid:image001.jpg@01CC1F7C.D0496B20]

From: Julie Talevski [mailto:julie.talevski@newcastle.edu.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2011 8:41 AM
To: anz.heug@list.heug.org
Subject: [anz.heug] - RE: DEEWR Remissions

Hello Jo

Thanks for getting back to me.

There certainly does not appear to be an easy way around this. I will discuss your methodology with our SF team and see if there's something we can use.

Many thanks

Cheers

Julie

>>> On 30/05/2011 at 14:22, in message <heug.190015@list.heug.org>, Joanne Davey <jdavey@usc.edu.au> wrote:

Hi Julie,

At USC, we do not make any adjustment to the original charges in Student Financials for remitted records. In order to track the students with remissions, we use an administrative grade (WR) which has recently been created.

However, where students have made an upfront payment, we have created two Item Types so a refund can be processed. The first Item type is a waiver which creates a credit on the account and the second item type is the refund item type. These work okay in principle, but we have a lot of problems with the waiver shuffling across terms when a student enrols in future semesters. When the waiver moves across terms, the waiver amount is deducted from the charge amount for that term and we then end up with the same type of problem in the Load Liability file, with the E384 charge reporting as zero.

This has been creating quite a few issues for us recently, so if you can find a manageable solution, we'd love to hear it too.

Regards,

Jo

-----End Original Message-----

-----End Original Message-----

-----End Original Message-----

Hi Suzanna

Unfortunately we have some remissions that are requested as early as the end of January (Trimester 1 census date is 25/01/11) and given that remissions are due to special circumstances we try to get them approved and processed as quickly as possible. If we were to wait until the 31 May submission date several months will have passed.

Many thanks for your response.

Kind Regards

Julie

>>> On 31/05/2011 at 10:19, in message <heug.190017@list.heug.org>, Suzanna Wong