Re: Resolution 2004-10-16.dbg.1: Committee Framework

On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 09:16:21AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > David Graham - SPI Secretary writes ("Resolution 2004-10-16.dbg.1: Committee Framework"):
> > I can see, for example, that it might be useful for the board to
> > delegate a day-to-day finances committee to oversee the work of the
> > Treasurer, authorise minor non-project-related expenditures, etc.
> > That might allow Jimmy to get authorisation for things quicker (if
> > that's what he wants).
>
> I'd first like to hear from our two treasurers if the work is too
> much for them and a committee would help them.

I don't think a committee would be useful in the sense of sharing the
load. We currently don't have an overwhelming amount of work (unless
Branden disagrees). The main thing on our todo list is to apply for an
account at FirstIB, which specifically requires coordination between
John, David, Branden, and me, and which couldn't simply be done by any
arbitrary committee.

However, if the idea was to have a committee that could
approve small treasurer-related expenditures more quickly than the full
board can, then I can see that it might be useful. If the $50/month
budget is retained (note the reduction from the current $100/month), it
would only be needed for medium-sized expenses and small expenses in a
month where other expenses maxed out the $40 budget. In other words,
it's certainly a reasonable idea in any case, but only really essential
if I don't retain a meaningful budget.

BTW, our President already has the bylaws-given authority to appoint
committees, so I don't know why we always bother with full resolutions
for them. Or does that only extend to choosing the membership instead
of the entire committee charter?

In this message I am speaking only for myself as Treasurer, not for
Branden as Deputy Treasurer.

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
treasurer(at)spi-inc(dot)org