On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Caryl Bigenho <cbige...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > OK…. > > It has been asked why do we need to have incidental expenses under a > certain amount approved by the Financial Manager (and larger amounts > approved by the board). Up until now, some people have spent funds and > asked for permission to do so later. While most of these expenses were > legitimate and would probably have been approved right away, we have seen > incidences of reluctance of the SLOB to approve some expeditures that were > made without prior consulting. Don't ask for specific examples. If you want > an example, read through past SLOB meetings and you will find them. > I have looked and not found these copious examples you have often referred to. > > Almost every orgainzation I know of, be it public, private, for profit, or > non profit has a proceedure like this to handle small expenses without > having to bring them to a full vote of their boards. Why would this be? > What are the advantages of having a procedute for "petty cash" type > expenses? > We have existing mechanisms in the discretion afforded to team/project leaders in the community already, although we should perhaps expand upon that list. > > Here are just a few reasons: > > *Efficiency:* Being able to spend needed small amounts of money without > full SLOB approval at a monthly meeting allows things to move ahead > smoothly and reduces the "clutter" at meetings. > Again, in theory we already have this for infrastructure, i18n, and turtle workshops. I am open to expanding the list on a targeted basis. For example, I don't recall our ever giving Sean/marketing such latitude, although it world certainly make sense. > > *Flexibility:* If meeting were weekly rather than monthly there might be > no need for this proposal. However, with a once a month meeting with an > over-full agenda, there is no flexibility to move quickly on opportunities > that come up. > See response to "Efficiency." > > *Economy:* money may be saved by getting a "second opinion" on an > expenditure. The Financial Manager may know of sources that are less > expensive or of other ways to do something that will cost less. We saw this > when Samson got help with his proposal for expenses for his translation > project. It could apply to any expense. We need to be good stewards of > SugarLabs funds. > Your example is not relevant as it was a major proposal, not a petty cash outlay. Do you have any real-world examples? > > *Compliance: *The Software Freedom Foundation wants more accountability > re: spending of SugarLabs funds. This will help achieve that goal. This is, > perhaps, the most important reason listed here. > In my experience, the Conservancy seems to want full board approval for every transaction regardless of whatever internal rules we establish. I am curious as to how we will circumvent that here. In any case, compliance is orthogonal to approval as far as I can see. Can you give me an example of where it is not? > > I could probably go on with more and I'm sure many of you know of other > good reasons that we could add but, I think these are excellent arguments > in favor of allowing small amounts of $Y with approval of the Financial > Manager and reporting monthly to the SLOB. (with Y set by SLOB and revised > as seen fit). > > While I am in favor of the creation of the FM position in order to facilitate relations with the Conservancy, I see the insertion of the FM into the mix as mostly more rather than less red tape for purposes you are proposing. regards. -walter > Cheers! > CAryl > > > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org <http://www.sugarlabs.org>
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep