Re: Make SPI book keeping more transparent?

On 6/11/15 5:10 PM, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 13:19:11 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>> On 06/11/2015 12:51 PM, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
>> claims for compensation (unless the treasurer fooled the auditor).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is this really a non-issue, or why did i not received any feedback on
>>> the general mailing list?
>>
>> I find it a non-issue as the books accounts are publicly disclosed
>> monthly and we have a CPA/Book Keeper.
>
> Ok. I would just like to avoid, that we are suprisingly 'hit' by a
> authority financial audit and are not prepared for that or find out
> disagreement only then.

This idea of having auditors from among the membership might be a
European tradition. I have seen it in several associations there. But
it's usually for smaller associations that don't use professional
bookkeeping or publish continuous accounts, as a way for the general
membership to validate the work of the executive committee.

Since SPI uses professional bookkeeping and publishes monthly reports,
and the tax authorities are happy with that, it's probably not necessary
to add an additional auditing method.