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

[David Graham - SPI Secretary]

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.org   D5F45889