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.
|
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.
|