Re: Resolution 2004-10-28.dbg.1: Treasurer's Budget

Resolution 2004-10-28.dbg.1: Treasurer's Budget

1. WHEREAS the Treasurer may require an allocation of money with which to
perform his duties;

The Board of Directors hereby resolves that:

2. The Treasurer shall be allocated a budget not to exceed $100 per month
to perform his duties;

3. All money spent by the Treasurer is counted against this budget in the
month in which it is spent, regardless of when it is reimbursed to the
Treasurer;

4. The Treasurer may choose to reimburse other people for expenses
incurred in assisting the Treasurer in his duties;

5. The Treasurer shall be under no obligation to spend this money;

6. Unspent monies from one month shall not carry over to the next month;

7. Money spent under the terms of this budget may only be spent in such a
way as to assist the Treasurer in his duties as the Treasurer;

8. This budget takes effect on the date of the passage of this resolution
and is effective for one year.

9. This budget may be renewed by the board of directors annually, if a
report on the previous year's expenditures and reimbursements has been
presented and is to the satisfaction of the Board.

---
David Graham, SPI Secretary
cdlu(at)spi-inc(dot)org D5F45889

David Graham - SPI Secretary writes ("Resolution 2004-10-28.dbg.1: Treasurer's Budget"):
> Resolution 2004-10-28.dbg.1: Treasurer's Budget

Good resolution. I have one comment:

> 9. This budget may be renewed by the board of directors annually, if a
> report on the previous year's expenditures and reimbursements has been
> presented and is to the satisfaction of the Board.

Since the board can and might do it anyway, I'd suggest writing
something like

9. This board intents to renew this budget annually, in each case if a
report [...]

Thanks,
Ian.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Good resolution. I have one comment:
>
> > 9. This budget may be renewed by the board of directors annually, if a
> > report on the previous year's expenditures and reimbursements has been
> > presented and is to the satisfaction of the Board.
>
> Since the board can and might do it anyway, I'd suggest writing
> something like
>
> 9. This board intents to renew this budget annually, in each case if a
> report [...]

I agree in principal, at least in the case of the current board -- but I
would not like to tell a future board what it intends to do, thus the
wording of 'may'. A future board may not intend to renew this budget
and instead allocate $2000 a month to hire a full time book-keeper (it
necessarily couldn't be the treasurer as officers are specifically denied
a salary in our by-laws). I can't see that happening in the next couple of
years, but non-profits can get that large and it's not in our interests to
tell future boards what they intend to do.

By the same token, by stating 'may' and not 'intends', the board is
putting the treasurer on notice that in the future, any budget needs to be
justified by past usage. The board will decide what it intends to do once
it has seen how it was used the previous year.

Does that make any sense?

---
David Graham, SPI Secretary
cdlu(at)spi-inc(dot)org D5F45889

David Graham - SPI Secretary wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Good resolution. I have one comment:
> >
> > > 9. This budget may be renewed by the board of directors annually, if a
> > > report on the previous year's expenditures and reimbursements has been
> > > presented and is to the satisfaction of the Board.
> >
> > Since the board can and might do it anyway, I'd suggest writing
> > something like
> >
> > 9. This board intents to renew this budget annually, in each case if a
> > report [...]

What happens if there hasn't been a report?

Why not phrase it like

9. The treasurer shall present a report on the previous year's
expenditures and reimbursements anually to the Board.

10. The Board intends to renew this budget annually during their
general meeting.

(by using the general meeting as an anchor the annual handling

or

10. The Board may renew this budget with a different amount of money
annualy.

or something like that.

> I agree in principal, at least in the case of the current board -- but I
> would not like to tell a future board what it intends to do, thus the

Why not? The by-laws already do that, several of our resolutions already
do that (read: meeting policy and stuff).

> wording of 'may'. A future board may not intend to renew this budget
> and instead allocate $2000 a month to hire a full time book-keeper (it
> necessarily couldn't be the treasurer as officers are specifically denied

Then the new board needs to approve a new resolution, no?

> a salary in our by-laws). I can't see that happening in the next couple of
> years, but non-profits can get that large and it's not in our interests to
> tell future boards what they intend to do.
>
> By the same token, by stating 'may' and not 'intends', the board is
> putting the treasurer on notice that in the future, any budget needs to be
> justified by past usage. The board will decide what it intends to do once
> it has seen how it was used the previous year.

Since the board can decide to stop or increase this anyway, is this
reason so important?

> Does that make any sense?

What if we say no? :)

Regards,

Joey

--
Have you ever noticed that "General Public Licence" contains the word "Pub"?

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Martin Schulze wrote:
> What happens if there hasn't been a report?

Then the treasurer is not being accountable and the board should not renew
the budget, notwithstanding its apparent intention to.

> Why not phrase it like
>
> 9. The treasurer shall present a report on the previous year's
> expenditures and reimbursements anually to the Board.
>
> 10. The Board intends to renew this budget annually during their
> general meeting.
>
> (by using the general meeting as an anchor the annual handling
>
> or
>
> 10. The Board may renew this budget with a different amount of money
> annualy.
>
> or something like that.

Or a combination:

9. This budget may be renewed by the Board of Directors annually at the
July Annual General Meeting, if a report on the previous year's
expenditures and reimbursements has been presented and is to the
satisfaction of the Board with a monthly allocation amount to be
determined at that time.

It still uses may, which allows a may not. Intends specifies that the
board wants to whether or not that's the case and tells the treasurer that
the board intends to renew it with or without his report, providing a
disincentive to fully account for his expenditures.

If you'd like to propose an amendment, or are amenable to the above new
paragraph 9, I'll happily adjust the agenda for the meeting to reflect
that.

> > I agree in principal, at least in the case of the current board -- but I
> > would not like to tell a future board what it intends to do, thus the
>
> Why not? The by-laws already do that, several of our resolutions already
> do that (read: meeting policy and stuff).

The closest I can find to the board stating it intends to do something in
a resolution is this:

"4. Whereas the Board believes that the status quo should be preserved
until a determination of the intended future of the Open Source trademark
is reached by the Board;" in Resolution 1998-12-01.iwj.1: Open Source
Trademark.

I fundamentally disagree that we should say what we intend to do next year
in this year's resolution.

> > wording of 'may'. A future board may not intend to renew this budget
> > and instead allocate $2000 a month to hire a full time book-keeper (it
> > necessarily couldn't be the treasurer as officers are specifically denied
>
> Then the new board needs to approve a new resolution, no?

Yes, a new resolution need only say 'Budget Resolution 2004-10-28.dbg.1 is
renewed until July 1st, 2006, as per clause 9.'.

> > a salary in our by-laws). I can't see that happening in the next couple of
> > years, but non-profits can get that large and it's not in our interests to
> > tell future boards what they intend to do.
> >
> > By the same token, by stating 'may' and not 'intends', the board is
> > putting the treasurer on notice that in the future, any budget needs to be
> > justified by past usage. The board will decide what it intends to do once
> > it has seen how it was used the previous year.
>
> Since the board can decide to stop or increase this anyway, is this
> reason so important?

Yes, because the board can do whatever it darn well pleases in the future
as far as a new budget resolution, 'may' makes the resolution renewable
without much fanfare if the board so chooses, but 'intends' states an
intention that we don't yet know will be the case.

> > Does that make any sense?
>
> What if we say no? :)

Then feel free to submit an amendment. :)

---
David Graham, SPI Secretary
cdlu(at)spi-inc(dot)org D5F45889