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

From: Martin Schulze <joey(at)infodrom(dot)org>
To: David Graham - SPI Secretary <cdlu(at)spi-inc(dot)org>
Cc: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org, board(at)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: Resolution 2004-10-28.dbg.1: Treasurer's Budget
Date: 2004-10-29 13:16:02
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

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


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

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? :)



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


Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Graham - SPI Secretary 2004-10-29 15:18:11 Call for discussion: adding member projects?
Previous Message David Graham - SPI Secretary 2004-10-29 12:44:40 Re: Resolution 2004-10-28.dbg.1: Treasurer's Budget