Re: money handling

John,

> 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?

> 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
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.

> 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.

> 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.

Mind you, all of this assumes that I'm going to be elected, which is still
a matter of conjecture.

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco