|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 21 new of 78 responses total. |
mta
|
|
response 58 of 78:
| 
Dec 16 19:39 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
mta
|
|
response 59 of 78:
|
Dec 16 19:41 UTC 1997 |
But it becomes much, much easier to *get* 501c3 status if we've already been
following the rules.
The IRS is very willling to turn people down, you know.
|
dang
|
|
response 60 of 78:
|
Dec 16 21:49 UTC 1997 |
resp:57 Why now? I can't think of any reason why one couldn't.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 61 of 78:
|
Dec 17 01:02 UTC 1997 |
Re #57, in agreement with #60: of course it can. It can impose policies
(in fact, it has) requiring that it not do anything that would jeopardize
obtaining 501(c)3 exemption, which is what the Articles provide.
|
mary
|
|
response 62 of 78:
|
Feb 5 13:55 UTC 1998 |
Was the topic of the role (and authority) of the Grex Store
Manager ever brought before the Board? I don't see any
mention of it in the minutes.
I believe Jan announced jiffer has the job. But I'd assume
all purchases will need to be authorized by a Board vote?
That may acually be the best way to go unless the store is
going to be doing a whole lot of business and bringing in
significant profits.
|
janc
|
|
response 63 of 78:
|
Feb 20 15:44 UTC 1998 |
I don't think the Grex shopkeeper can purchase anything without board
authorizations right now. It is possible that we should consider the
job as one that should be approved by board vote (though jiffer volunteered
during a board meeting and no objections were heard). Formalizing it a bit
more is probably a good idea. I guess the shopkeeper is managing a
non-trivial portion of Grex's assets (the store inventory) and needs to be
appointed by someone, and if not by the board, then who? So yeah, I think
we should elect jiffer to the job.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 64 of 78:
|
Feb 20 19:11 UTC 1998 |
Anyone manipulating Grex assets or acting publically on behalf of Grex
should be appointed by the board. It helps protect them and assures
others with whom that person deals.
|
richard
|
|
response 65 of 78:
|
Feb 20 19:43 UTC 1998 |
the grex shopkeeper should be the grex treasurer, because the
treasurer can make purchases without board authorization
|
mta
|
|
response 66 of 78:
|
Feb 20 20:26 UTC 1998 |
Except for one problem, Richard.
Both shopkeeper and trearurer are big jobs and since Grex can't afford to pay a
salary, we have to make sure our vulunteers also get a couple of free hours a
week to make a living in.
Other than that it makes sense.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 67 of 78:
|
Feb 20 20:37 UTC 1998 |
Even the treasurer cannot make purchases without board authorization. The
board adopts a budget, or a specific purchase authorization, and identifies
who will make the purchase - it is not usually the treasurer, who just pays
the bill when it arrives.
|
richard
|
|
response 68 of 78:
|
Feb 21 19:23 UTC 1998 |
yes, but anybody who has their signature in grex's signature file at
the bank can write a check, and pay for stuff, and get it authorized
after the fact by the board. So I guess the shopkeeper needs to be
one of those people. How many people can sign grex checks? Must
be three or four people right?
|
scg
|
|
response 69 of 78:
|
Feb 21 20:19 UTC 1998 |
Our check signers are supposed to get board approval first, Richard.
|
aruba
|
|
response 70 of 78:
|
Feb 21 21:30 UTC 1998 |
I'm the only one who has any checks. :) I certainly wouldn't make a
purchase of anything non-standard without getting the board's approval.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 71 of 78:
|
Feb 22 21:00 UTC 1998 |
Absolutely no one except the treasurer plus an alternate in the event
of his/her absence, should be able to sign checks for an organization.
Having more than one authorized person signing checks regularly is an
invitation for confusion if not serious problems.
In the organizations in which I am active this is always the case. However
the treasurer can advance funds to someone to have on hand to make a purchase,
or write a check for that person to use at the time of purchase, or require
an invoice and pay directly to the vendor. The last is the best, but only
for things for which the vendor will accept payment on an invoice.
|
valerie
|
|
response 72 of 78:
|
Feb 24 07:06 UTC 1998 |
This response has been erased.
|
mdw
|
|
response 73 of 78:
|
Feb 28 07:48 UTC 1998 |
In a large enough organization it is certainly possible to have lots of
people who can write checks. I'm quite certain ford motor company
doesn't have one person plus an alternate who signs all the checks the
company issues. If nothing else, think of the disability payments when
their wrist ligaments fail, plus the number of upset union people there
would be when paychecks didn't show up because the guys signing the
checks can't sign them fast enough to keep up with the montly payroll.
Fortunately, grex isn't anywhere near this size.
|
other
|
|
response 74 of 78:
|
Feb 28 18:40 UTC 1998 |
companies of that size, and typically, smaller ones as well, contract payroll
management companies to process and distribute those checks so that the
treasurer can handle other matters of a less regular or more "important"
nature...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 75 of 78:
|
Feb 28 18:46 UTC 1998 |
They also write checks with a computer and printer...and they authorize
a number of departments to "write checks" on the authorized budgeted accounts.
When I order something from a UM account over which I have authority, a
computer somewhere writes the check and debits that account. If Grex
wants to budget by accounts, that's fine....but the checks would still be
"written" by the Accounting Office computer. The real point is to not
have conflicting authority over a single account. At the moment, Grex
just has one account.
|
mdw
|
|
response 76 of 78:
|
Mar 1 07:22 UTC 1998 |
Many companies, in fact, *especially* often small companies, contract
out their payroll operations. But the reason there is not so much
scaling issues (although that's certainly a factor too) but because it's
complicated, high risk, and uniform across companies - so it's possible
for companies, such as ADP right here in town, to offer payroll services
for cheaper than most companies could do it for themselves. Rane and I
may be unusual in that the organization we work for *doesn't* contract
this out to ADP. This is all, of course, entirely moot for grex,
because grex doesn't have any salaries, its labour force is even cheaper
than hiring outside contractors, the total amount of money grex has is
too small to be worth anyone else's while, and because it would take
more effort to supervise an outside contractor to handle our money than
it would take us to do it ourselves.
Computers certainly do facilitate accounting. But this is has very
little to do with how the accounting is structured, and is *certainly*
not a substitute for good accounting practices. I'm sure our treasurer
would not be happy were we to require he dispense with the services of a
computer in handling our accounting needs, even though he is just one
person. Conversely, in the 19th century, railroads handled financial
and accounting needs far more complicated than grex is ever likely to
become, using no technology more advanced than that of the typewriter,
telegraph, and carbon paper--and a lot of hand powered ink dripping
pens.
Having said all that, I do in fact agree it's reasonable to have the
usual treasurer who handles most of the accounting needs, plus an
emergency alternate in case the treasurer falls off a ladder or
something. I also agree that it's reasonable to have that treasurer
write out the checks that pay for merchandise. But the correct reason
is not "because it's the only way to do it", or "because of computers" -
it's because it's the simplest, best way, to do it, given the present
size & structure of grex. Now, if our merchandizing efforts really
expand, and we start competing with mickey-mouse for space in department
stores, or we start selling merchandize in india, *then* it might be
time to rethink this strategy, and there *are* other solutions that
would be more appropriate.
|
davel
|
|
response 77 of 78:
|
Mar 2 13:43 UTC 1998 |
Somewhat before that point, I think.
|
jiffer
|
|
response 78 of 78:
|
May 1 03:28 UTC 1998 |
As the some what new shopkeeper, I would not feel right having to make
purchases without first the boards approval... which I feel is the only right
way of doing things.
|