For some extra information about navigating the forum you can go to Forum Tips
Lots of activity on the Board and Racedis Forums
Quote from Al Olme on March 19, 2007, 2:26 amRecently there has been a ton of activity and no little amount of controversy (all polite) about the "Business of the Association" and the duties of the Treasurer (where our bank account should be and who has control of it, who writes checks, who signs checks, etc).
A couple of things have come up that I would like to comment on and I solict the input of other members on these issues.
Recently Gail, our Secretary wrote,"In other words, those who write the checks, do not sign the checks. The same internal controls work in reverse - those who sign checks, do not write checks. The business standard, and the first principle of sound internal controls is: Those who write the checks, do not sign the checks."
Now this is out of context and I encourage you all to go to ther following link for the complete text.
http://www.sidecar.com/megabbs/thread-view.asp?threadid=4242&posts=9
('Sorry, you have to get clearance from the Secretary before you can see it. See the instructions near the end of this post) But I feel that our Secretary's statement isn't quite right. Actually the real world corporate standard is for checks to be written and rubber stamped by those folks who write them because that is the most efficient way to do it. The current proposals have two or three officers touching each check, no matter how low the value. Come on, no real business would put up with that sort of inefficiency. The fact that these folks are scattered all over the country doesn't really help much. We have an elected official to do that job, Dave is the Treasurer. With only one exception that I know of, that has worked for the past 30 years. The issue centers around the idea that we shouldn't have one person who MIGHT to tempted to make off with the club funds. It's a reasonable concern but simple oversight by the BOD (online access to the account statements) should be adequate. If there is concern, have the Treasurer bonded so that if he does take a runner with the club's bucks, we're covered.
The tone of the current discussions isn't as bad as the "bad old days" when we had actual problems with official behavior but there are some things that don't go down very well. Recently there were allusions to a "take over ploy". That's the sort of stuff that really makes you think twice about how important all this really is. We are straying from delivering value to the members and getting caught up in procedures and postualtion. Maybe I just didn't understand what sort of a "take over" is possible. Frankly, I'm puzzled; who would want to "take over" the USCA and what does that mean?
It's great if the BOD wants to work all the financial stuff out, in fact it's probably necessary but in the meantime what about the members and the activities? All the stuff that has been in place continues, door prizes for local rallies and the like are going along OK. We have had some rally info but I think we'd all like to see more. The Sidecarist is better than ever and Chuck has been doing a bang up job selling ads (a quality publication makes that easier but it is still a big effort). But there isn't any new added value being created. Maybe when the current procedural stuff is over we'll see some expansion of service for the members. I'm certain that is a high priority for the BOD.
So, for now, like Vernon says,""... if you are interested in auditing the forum [RacedisII], send an email to secretary@sidecar.com with your name, membership number and user name on this forum. She will verify that you are indeed a member in good standing and will give you further instructions as necessary."
It's your club and you should know what's going on.
Recently there has been a ton of activity and no little amount of controversy (all polite) about the "Business of the Association" and the duties of the Treasurer (where our bank account should be and who has control of it, who writes checks, who signs checks, etc).
A couple of things have come up that I would like to comment on and I solict the input of other members on these issues.
Recently Gail, our Secretary wrote,"In other words, those who write the checks, do not sign the checks. The same internal controls work in reverse - those who sign checks, do not write checks. The business standard, and the first principle of sound internal controls is: Those who write the checks, do not sign the checks."
Now this is out of context and I encourage you all to go to ther following link for the complete text.
http://www.sidecar.com/megabbs/thread-view.asp?threadid=4242&posts=9
('Sorry, you have to get clearance from the Secretary before you can see it. See the instructions near the end of this post) But I feel that our Secretary's statement isn't quite right. Actually the real world corporate standard is for checks to be written and rubber stamped by those folks who write them because that is the most efficient way to do it. The current proposals have two or three officers touching each check, no matter how low the value. Come on, no real business would put up with that sort of inefficiency. The fact that these folks are scattered all over the country doesn't really help much. We have an elected official to do that job, Dave is the Treasurer. With only one exception that I know of, that has worked for the past 30 years. The issue centers around the idea that we shouldn't have one person who MIGHT to tempted to make off with the club funds. It's a reasonable concern but simple oversight by the BOD (online access to the account statements) should be adequate. If there is concern, have the Treasurer bonded so that if he does take a runner with the club's bucks, we're covered.
The tone of the current discussions isn't as bad as the "bad old days" when we had actual problems with official behavior but there are some things that don't go down very well. Recently there were allusions to a "take over ploy". That's the sort of stuff that really makes you think twice about how important all this really is. We are straying from delivering value to the members and getting caught up in procedures and postualtion. Maybe I just didn't understand what sort of a "take over" is possible. Frankly, I'm puzzled; who would want to "take over" the USCA and what does that mean?
It's great if the BOD wants to work all the financial stuff out, in fact it's probably necessary but in the meantime what about the members and the activities? All the stuff that has been in place continues, door prizes for local rallies and the like are going along OK. We have had some rally info but I think we'd all like to see more. The Sidecarist is better than ever and Chuck has been doing a bang up job selling ads (a quality publication makes that easier but it is still a big effort). But there isn't any new added value being created. Maybe when the current procedural stuff is over we'll see some expansion of service for the members. I'm certain that is a high priority for the BOD.
So, for now, like Vernon says,""... if you are interested in auditing the forum [RacedisII], send an email to secretary@sidecar.com with your name, membership number and user name on this forum. She will verify that you are indeed a member in good standing and will give you further instructions as necessary."
It's your club and you should know what's going on.
Quote from Guest on March 19, 2007, 4:07 pmFirst, thanks for posting this update Al.
I agree mostly with your post, and there have been several proposals in front of the board where more then two would handle the checks, however the proposal published in the Sidecarist only calls for two, the Treasurer, who writes and signs the check, and a co-signer from the board. This required second signature serves the purpose of separating the Treasurer's duties of deposits and disbursments while leaving the Treasurer in control of the funds.
The point of contention in this proposal among the board is should the Treasurer be one of the two signatures required on checks.
The alternative proposals that include removing the requirement of the Treasurer to sign checks eliminates the Treasurer's ability to control funds. It also requires a third person's involvement if we are to have two signatures on a check. If we don't have the requirement for two signatures, we might as well stick with the current system, which I agree with you Al has worked reasonably well for 30 or so years.
My disagreement with the Secretary on this point is important. If the Treasurer is not required to sign checks we have removed their ability to perform the primary duties of a Treasurer, which according to Webster, is to control the disbursment of funds. Without need for the Treasurer's signature to approve disbursment of funds, they no longer can function as the clubs treasury watchdog, and become an auditor of sorts, rather then a Treasurer. The second signature required on the checks meets the test of separation of function.
I have heard considerable dissent on the proposal from several board members, but none have presented an argument why this amendment won't solve the preceived weakness in our current system, while keeping the process streamlined as possible, and maintaining the Treasurer's role in the control of the clubs funds.
Tod Parks
SE Board Member
First, thanks for posting this update Al.
I agree mostly with your post, and there have been several proposals in front of the board where more then two would handle the checks, however the proposal published in the Sidecarist only calls for two, the Treasurer, who writes and signs the check, and a co-signer from the board. This required second signature serves the purpose of separating the Treasurer's duties of deposits and disbursments while leaving the Treasurer in control of the funds.
The point of contention in this proposal among the board is should the Treasurer be one of the two signatures required on checks.
The alternative proposals that include removing the requirement of the Treasurer to sign checks eliminates the Treasurer's ability to control funds. It also requires a third person's involvement if we are to have two signatures on a check. If we don't have the requirement for two signatures, we might as well stick with the current system, which I agree with you Al has worked reasonably well for 30 or so years.
My disagreement with the Secretary on this point is important. If the Treasurer is not required to sign checks we have removed their ability to perform the primary duties of a Treasurer, which according to Webster, is to control the disbursment of funds. Without need for the Treasurer's signature to approve disbursment of funds, they no longer can function as the clubs treasury watchdog, and become an auditor of sorts, rather then a Treasurer. The second signature required on the checks meets the test of separation of function.
I have heard considerable dissent on the proposal from several board members, but none have presented an argument why this amendment won't solve the preceived weakness in our current system, while keeping the process streamlined as possible, and maintaining the Treasurer's role in the control of the clubs funds.
Tod Parks
SE Board Member
Quote from Guest on March 19, 2007, 4:14 pmWhat more would you like to know about the upcoming National? I'll be sure to post the information on the national rally thread.
Tod Parks
Rally07 chair
What more would you like to know about the upcoming National? I'll be sure to post the information on the national rally thread.
Tod Parks
Rally07 chair
Quote from Guest on March 19, 2007, 4:17 pmIf you look back at the votes you will see I was one of the minority who wanted an open board transcript. The read only by request was the best I could get as a compromise with the members who wanted to keep it closed.
Tod Parks
SE Board Member
If you look back at the votes you will see I was one of the minority who wanted an open board transcript. The read only by request was the best I could get as a compromise with the members who wanted to keep it closed.
Tod Parks
SE Board Member
Quote from Al Olme on March 19, 2007, 5:53 pmTod,
I've seen the information that both you and my friend Jon Cheney produced. I guess I'm just anxious for the season to start and I want more to drool over. Thanks for your work on the rally, I know how much effort is required.
Tod,
I've seen the information that both you and my friend Jon Cheney produced. I guess I'm just anxious for the season to start and I want more to drool over. Thanks for your work on the rally, I know how much effort is required.
Quote from Guest on March 19, 2007, 6:13 pmI know you are well aware of the work involved, having produced rallies yourself. I am fortunate in that I have several co-chairs involved on the ground in NC, and we have done a good job of distributing the effort among us.
I know you are well aware of the work involved, having produced rallies yourself. I am fortunate in that I have several co-chairs involved on the ground in NC, and we have done a good job of distributing the effort among us.
Quote from Deleted user on March 19, 2007, 8:11 pmThanks Al for this post. I am one of those that your people let in to Racedis so have been watching this for some time. I think “some time” is saying something.
There have been two things that have come to my mine more than once. What money are we talking about here? I have seen the reports. The next is one that I need to tell my self from time to time. K.I.S.S. = Keep It Simple S _ _ _ _ _ I will let you fill the last word.
To sum this up I would vote for MY Treasurer write and sign the checks and then send them on to the Pres or VP to sign then send to the person (Co.) that has been waiting for their money.
Too bad we are not all closer together then we could then just go for a ride.
Thanks Al for this post. I am one of those that your people let in to Racedis so have been watching this for some time. I think “some time” is saying something.
There have been two things that have come to my mine more than once. What money are we talking about here? I have seen the reports. The next is one that I need to tell my self from time to time. K.I.S.S. = Keep It Simple S _ _ _ _ _ I will let you fill the last word.
To sum this up I would vote for MY Treasurer write and sign the checks and then send them on to the Pres or VP to sign then send to the person (Co.) that has been waiting for their money.
Too bad we are not all closer together then we could then just go for a ride.
Quote from Guest on March 19, 2007, 8:54 pmI used to have the problem of waiting for the riding season to start. Then 15 years ago I moved from Vermont to South Carolina, and its been one long riding season since then.
I used to have the problem of waiting for the riding season to start. Then 15 years ago I moved from Vermont to South Carolina, and its been one long riding season since then.
Quote from Al Olme on March 20, 2007, 12:49 amTod,
Actually I just got back from dinner with folks from a company in High Point, NC and we talked about me going to work for them. Maybe some time in NC is in my future??
Tod,
Actually I just got back from dinner with folks from a company in High Point, NC and we talked about me going to work for them. Maybe some time in NC is in my future??
Quote from Guest on March 20, 2007, 8:47 amImagine the end of winter as you know it. And if you want to see snow, there are several ski areas within a few miles of the national rally near Boone.
Imagine the end of winter as you know it. And if you want to see snow, there are several ski areas within a few miles of the national rally near Boone.