Re: money handling

On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 01:40:40PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > First off, SPI already HAS a relationship with a CPA. Please google
> > for cpa site:spi-inc.org. The board also authorized this while you
> > were on it. In short, between our legal counsel and bookeepeing firm,
> > plus that CPA, we have everything taken care of that a CPA might need
> > to do, plus advice on what needs to go to a CPA and what to give to one.
>
> Quite frankly, this is news to me and I think to Jimmy and Branden as
> well. Jimmy? Perhaps I could have a phone number for this CPA?

Nope, not them, because they've already been talking to the CPAs last
year. See -board archives from May 2005 and -private archives from July
2005, plus the 2005 annual report.

> > You don't hire an expensive CPA to do basic bookkeeping and daily mail
> > processing, which it sounds like you've been trying to suggest we do.
>
> Actually, this was my suggestion. Our current bookkeeping firm is quite
> passive and needs nagging to take care of routine tasks. Here in San

I am wondering whether they are that way with everyone, or if they are
that way because of what they perceive we want? In other words, we have
to be active and on top of things from our end, or we can't expect good
results from any company we may hire.

> Francisco, my personal business hires a CPA firm, which employs several
> bookkeepers to deal with non-filing issues and the CPA to deal with taxes
> and the like. This makes more sense to me than hiring two different
> agencies and having the treasurer responsible for being the bridge between
> them.

That does indeed make a lot of sense. (In theory, Mark's was supposed
to work directly with a set of CPAs they work with routinely, but it
looks like this hasn't happened.)

> > I don't recall an officer ever doing the sort of thing a CPA would
> > (file taxes and the like).
>
> See the recent board mailings. Currently the treasurer is doing 100% of
> the filings, which is why we are into double-extension territory.

Well, we haven't actually filed anything, which was sort of my point.
We're not taking load off officers because officers aren't doing it now.
I guess we're both correct since 100% of 0 is 0 ;-)

> > Why would you have SPI hire a CPA to do
> > bookkeeper's work? The bookkeeper is to take the load off the
> > officers.
>
> But Mark's Bookkeeping is not doing so. It's my opinion that we need to
> find a more involved bookkeeping agency/CPA office.

Yes, that makes sense. Hiring an accounting firm makes a lot of sense.
To me, saying "replace Mark's with a CPA" (which is essentially what
Bruce's messages sounded like) sounds like something entirely different.
But he's clarified that, so it sounds like everyone is in violent
agreement over this ;-)

-- John