[Cynnabar] Barony Digest, Vol 59, Issue 16
Elizabeth Calhoun via Barony
barony at cynnabar.org
Tue Sep 23 18:55:49 UTC 2014
My Lord Exchequer,
This is what I remember from our Seneschal's email:
"In short, the below update to the Financial Policy is to speed up minor
purchases by officers. The reason for this is to remove some of the
bureaucracy and unnecessary burden for minor items. But to still have the
budget items proposed and allow the request to be reviewed and approved (or
denied) by the group. Many ways were discussed previously on how to limit
(via wording/restrictions) these requests so they don't get abused. In the
end, keeping things simple and trusting both the officers in their role and
the group in general to know when things are being abused should help
curtail any issues. Thus my wording below of "occasionally request" is
there on purpose.
The proposed addition to the Cynnabar Financial Policy:
2. ii. 3. Group officers may occasionally request minor expenditures (up to
$50 or so) for carrying out the duties of their office. These minor budget
line item requests can be requested by the officer at a business meeting
and then approved or denied by the participants at that same meeting."
I ask your pardon if *I* misunderstood that it was intended to give each
officer an annual "expense account." For me, I was keying on, "... may
occasionally [infrequently] request minor expenditures (up to $50 or so)
for carrying out the duties of their office." And for those *occasional*
requests only, $50 and under, group assent would still be required.
Thank you for replying! I absolutely do understand your position on our
collective group liquidity in general and may have misunderstood to which
suggestion in amending the proposal you were objecting. As you say, and as
I well know: it goes out a LOT faster than it comes in.
In Service,
Godaeth
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Ben Jackson via Barony <barony at cynnabar.org
> wrote:
> Godaeth,
>
> I might have read the wrong email. I thought I read someone else
> suggesting we go further and allow for $50 in expenses for each officer per
> year, or something along those lines. You are right, some officers do put
> their own money down on things that could be expensed through the group,
> and they do this voluntarily. I alone go through a small amount of
> postage, paper and printer ink with what I do, and I cannot imagine what
> costs some others might incur. However, I was not implying that people
> would just waste money, à la Kwame Kilpatrick. (Gold-filigree court armor
> - "Check out my grillz!"; Pennsic tents with built in wine cellar, AC and
> sauna; "donations" to royalty which result in landed titles for pets,
> etc.) It's precisely those expenses you mentioned that we need to
> consider. (This also goes for this new rule of one-meeting approvals
> for $50 or less.) Gregiore is right in that more people will likely
> bring expenses for the barony to reimburse. Expenses that people might
> just pay on their own right now. I'm fine with people spending money out
> of pocket for this hobby. Making it easier for people to get reimbursed
> will drain our group's funds faster, like it or not and the barony can
> probably spend its money toward more useful expenses. By that I mean
> that our group funds might be better used toward large purchases that most
> of us would not just shell out for on our own, like a new wagon for
> Pennsic, or new flooring for the fighters. It's worth considering for the
> topic of one-meeting approvals as well. If we make it easier for lots of
> little expenses to be reimbursed, we could also wind up losing a lot of
> money in the long run, one small reimbursement at a time. At least with
> the one-meeting approval process, we can all see what it's being spent on.
> We do not have to reimburse anyone, either with the current or future
> process, if they just spend money on their own. The group still has a say
> in it. That wouldn't be true if we gave officers that allotment. If I, as
> exchequer, decided that I needed a tabulation machine and found one for $50
> and had an expense account which I could use toward a purchase without
> anyone having to approve it.... I don't think that's a good idea.
>
> Basically, long story short, I was not implying that no one in Cynnabar
> knows how to manage money. Far from it. I was implying that making it
> easier for people to spend money, even for good, legitimate reasons, will
> likely encourage them, even unintentionally, to spend the barony's money
> faster than it's going out now. That should be weighed.
>
> To Gregoire, I don't think having a one-meeting rule for approving $50
> expenses or less will lead to abuse specifically. How often do we find
> inappropriate requests for funds? How often do we turn people's requests
> down? Not often. People bring expenses to the barony to be reimbursed not
> infrequently. Nothing is really changing as far as what we approve. Just
> the how. You are very correct in the more serious concern of how fast we
> can draw down our funds.
>
> I don't particularly care of we do it this way or the old way, since the
> how doesn't change. An expense of $50 or less is likely not serious
> enough to cause most people hardship just because they have to wait through
> two extra meetings for an approval. The old method, aside from being
> annoying for those kinds of expenses, is fine. If our funds starting down
> dangerously quickly in either case, I'll be sure to let the group know.
>
> -de la Vega
>
> Subject: Barony Digest, Vol 59, Issue 16
> To: barony at cynnabar.org
> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:20:03 +0000
> From: barony at cynnabar.org
>
> Send Barony mailing list submissions to
> barony at cynnabar.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.cynnabar.org/listinfo/barony
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> barony-request at cynnabar.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> barony-owner at cynnabar.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Barony digest..."
>
>
>
> --Forwarded Message Attachment--
> From: barony at cynnabar.org
> CC: barony at cynnabar.org
> To: a_scholar_and_a_gentleman at hotmail.com
> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:48:21 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Cynnabar] Barony Digest, Vol 59, Issue 12
>
> Most Esteemed Exchequer --
>
> Your recent statement regarding your support of the proposed financial
> policy amendment prompts me to respond and I mean to do so in the spirit of
> chivalry. Specifically this:
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Ben Jackson via Barony <
> barony at cynnabar.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Cynnabar,
>
> "... Next, if we give every officer $50 to spend, I'm willing to wager
> they'll spend it. Was our barony really lacking $600-ish worth of goods
> this year? I am not sure people realize that this will wind up draining
> our coffers faster than before. We have a decent amount of money. Right
> now. Do we want to spend several hundred dollars extra on "office
> supplies"? Aren't there better uses for the group's money?"
>
>
> This is something of a non-sequitur. No one has "given" any officer money
> nor is that the intention of the proposal (as I understand it). "This
> will wind up draining ..." has yet to be proven. But more to my point, I
> don't think you realize that some officers may go over "about $50" in the
> conduct of our office annually without ever once asking for any
> reimbursement. It's just incidental to what we do, a loving part of our
> service.
>
> I will take your wager that if you give *every* officer $50 to spend,
> they'll spend it. I know at least one officer who never has -- put it back
> on the Barony to support such an expenditure. I'll wager there are more of
> us, too.
>
> I have two bows in my possession (and wrapped with a band black-red-white
> electrical tape) bought before Celtic Festival archery at Dick's Sporting
> Goods because we (Forester Grey and I) knew we would need lighter-poundage
> bows for young beginners at that demo. Total spent: about $75. Because
> for archery marshals, THAT'S "office supplies."
>
> I honestly don't think you meant to suggest that Baronial officers will
> just find ways of spending the money they appear to be given. But at the
> same time, one of the unspoken and critical aspects of retention is
> gratitude and recognition for the "time-talent-treasure" that goes into
> being an officer in a volunteer organization. That includes yours! Rather
> than what might be interpreted (as I did) as an implied accusation of poor
> stewardship with other peoples' money.
>
> I've been in your position: I've been the treasurer for a small volunteer
> organization (about 100 members) with several thousand in the bank. I know
> full well that it can go out a LOT faster than it comes in. Your caution
> is justified. I thank you for it.
>
> And thank you for reading my reply to your opinion.
>
> In Service,
>
> Godaeth
> -- "retiring" Group Marshal for Target Archery, Cynnabar
>
>
>
>
> --Forwarded Message Attachment--
> From: barony at cynnabar.org
> CC: barony at cynnabar.org
> To: a_scholar_and_a_gentleman at hotmail.com
> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:53:28 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Cynnabar] Barony Digest, Vol 59, Issue 12
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Ben Jackson via Barony <
> barony at cynnabar.org> wrote:
>
> " I cannot foresee any method to abuse this new system."
>
>
> Hi All-
>
> I expressed concern because I can. Even small abuses are abuses, and death
> by a thousand cuts is a real thing.
>
> -Gregoire.
>
>
> --Forwarded Message Attachment--
> From: barony at cynnabar.org
> To: barony at cynnabar.org; barony-request at cynnabar.org
> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:17:55 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Cynnabar] Barony Digest, Vol 59, Issue 15
>
> I went on line to change my email address to pattivash at gmail.com.
>
> apparently it did not stick.
>
> can you help me out?
>
> thank you!
>
> Heather
> aka Patti Kenney
>
>
>
> Quoting via Barony <barony at cynnabar.org>:
>
> > Send Barony mailing list submissions to
> > barony at cynnabar.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > http://lists.cynnabar.org/listinfo/barony
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > barony-request at cynnabar.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > barony-owner at cynnabar.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Barony digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. Southeastern Michigan Youth Combat practice
> > (Lord Kazmer via Barony)
> > 2. Mass Meeting Directions & Parking (Genoveva von L?beck via Barony)
> > 3. Re: Barony Digest, Vol 59, Issue 12 (Ben Jackson via Barony)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:40:03 -0400
> > From: Lord Kazmer via Barony <barony at cynnabar.org>
> > To: Barony of Cynnabar <barony at cynnabar.org>, Canton of Ealdnordwuda
> > <Ealdnordwuda at yahoogroups.com>, Middle Youth Middle Youth Marshal
> > <MiddleYouthMarshal at yahoogroups.com>, Barony of Roaring Wastes
> > <RoaringWastes at yahoogroups.com>, Pentamere Free Company Company
> > <PentamereFreeCompany at yahoogroups.com>, Altenberg Shire Shire
> > <shire-of-altenberg at googlegroups.com>, Hawkland Moor Hawkland Moor
> > <hawklandmoor at googlegroups.com>, Barony of Andelcrag
> > <andelcrag at yahoogroups.com>, Barony of Northwoods
> > <NorthwoodsBarony at yahoogroups.com>, Canton of Iron Oak
> > <Canton_of_Iron_Oak at yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Cynnabar] Southeastern Michigan Youth Combat practice
> > Message-ID: <4975B23B-C1AD-43A6-9BDD-CAEA864A3787 at aol.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> >
> > The next regularly scheduled Southeastern Michigan Youth Combat
> > Practice will be next Sunday, September 28th, 2014.
> >
> > Norman J. Halmich Park,
> > 3001 East 13 Mile Road,
> > Warren, MI 48092.
> > 1:00pm - 5:00pm
> >
> > This is the same day/time/location as the adult Armored Combat and
> > Rapier practice.
> >
> > This will be the last Roaring Waste Baronial Picnic day of the year.
> >
> > This will also be Spinning in the Park day.
> >
> > As always I will bring the loaner gear and there will be youth rapier.
> >
> > Nyilas Kazmer, OP
> > Middle Kingdom Deputy Earl Marshal
> > Youth Combat
> >
> > ?Don?t take life so serious, son. It ain?t nohow permanent." - Pogo
> > Walt Kelly US animator & cartoonist (1913 - 1973)
> >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL:
> > <http://lists.cynnabar.org/pipermail/barony/attachments/20140922/39d90382/attachment-0001.html>
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:04:42 -0400
> > From: Genoveva von L?beck via Barony <barony at cynnabar.org>
> > To: cynnabar <Barony at cynnabar.org>
> > Subject: [Cynnabar] Mass Meeting Directions & Parking
> > Message-ID:
> > <CA+5x1xSX799oGzb3DsDnSCW=j4T_vu=G+Ox868Z_4E_UZHG1kg at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Mass Meeting is Tuesday (TOMORROW) night from 7:00-9:00 pm at the Michigan
> > Union (Anderson Ballroom on the first floor). We need Cynnabar folks there
> > -- in garb/armor -- to help us talk about and demonstrate the activities
> > that make the SCA a fun thing to do! We also need new folks -- please bring
> > any SCA-curious friends or family you have to this meeting!
> >
> > Directions to the Michigan Union (located at 530 S State St., Ann Arbor, MI
> > 48109) are at http://uunions.umich.edu/content/directions-michigan-union
> >
> > Parking is most likely to be found at the Thompson Structure behind the
> > Union. You could also check for on-street parking near the Union, but it
> > will be scarce.
> >
> > If you have any questions, please let me know. If you need to reach me
> > after 6:00 pm tomorrow, you can text me at 734-276-5721. I look forward to
> > seeing you there! Thank you in advance for all your help. :)
> >
> > Genoveva
> > Cynnabar Chatelaine
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL:
> > <http://lists.cynnabar.org/pipermail/barony/attachments/20140922/7d926183/attachment-0001.html>
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 19:28:57 -0400
> > From: Ben Jackson via Barony <barony at cynnabar.org>
> > To: "barony at cynnabar.org" <barony at cynnabar.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Cynnabar] Barony Digest, Vol 59, Issue 12
> > Message-ID: <BLU180-W328961D1379704F083C21ABFB30 at phx.gbl>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> >
> > Dear Cynnabar,
> >
> > As the guy in charge of our money right now, adding a $50 expense
> > account for each officer is a lot of extra work for dubious benefit.
> > It will require the exchequer, (me for now) keep track of 12
> > separate expense accounts. Not an issue for me as I have formal
> > training in accounting, but it may be a major hassle for one of my
> > successors. Next, if we give every officer $50 to spend, I'm
> > willing to wager they'll spend it. Was our barony really lacking
> > $600-ish worth of goods this year? I am not sure people realize
> > that this will wind up draining our coffers faster than before. We
> > have a decent amount of money. Right now. Do we want to spend
> > several hundred dollars extra on "office supplies"? Aren't there
> > better uses for the group's money?
> >
> > That being said, allowing a single meeting for discussion for
> > expenses of $50 or less sounds ok for me. I don't see how three
> > weeks of discussing a $15 purchase for reasonable supplies yields
> > the group any greater benefit than one meeting's discussion. It
> > still creates a control mechanism where the group can monitor and
> > limit how the group's money is spent. I cannot foresee any method
> > to abuse this new system.
> >
> > My two pence.
> >
> > -de la Vega
> > Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Barony of Cynnabar
> >
> > Subject: Barony Digest, Vol 59, Issue 12
> > To: barony at cynnabar.org
> > Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 19:50:53 +0000
> > From: barony at cynnabar.org
> >
> > Send Barony mailing list submissions to
> > barony at cynnabar.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > http://lists.cynnabar.org/listinfo/barony
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > barony-request at cynnabar.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > barony-owner at cynnabar.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Barony digest..."
> >
> >
> > --Forwarded Message Attachment--
> > From: barony at cynnabar.org
> > CC: barony at cynnabar.org
> > To: boc.seneschal at gmail.com
> > Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 10:06:47 -0400
> > Subject: Re: [Cynnabar] Proposal to amend Cynnabar's Financial policy
> >
> > Overall I like the changes. I agree that the people at the meeting
> > should be able to approve minor budget items in one evening. In my
> > four years of meetings, I cannot recall a single time a budget item
> > of $50 or less was ever an issue. I don't see how this could be
> > easily abused since anyone the group trusts as Seneschal can decide
> > that it needs three meetings or point out that this is another
> > request. Personally, if I had any qualms with the proposal, I would
> > say this: I don't think it goes far enough. I would like to see
> > this for any expenditure under $50 regardless if they are an
> > officer. The same restrictions would apply (must be occasional, is
> > not guaranteed, etc.). Rarely are small budget items brought up by
> > non officers, but I think it is worth considering. For instance
> > choir and dance practice are not ran by officers. What if they need
> > supplies (choir more likely than dance)? Just a thought. One thing
> > to stress: This does not mean that you can see someting under $50, b
> > uy it, and then bring it to the Barony with a guarantee that you
> > will be reimbursed. At that point you would be purchasing something
> > with a risk that it will not be approved. To Lady Bree's point: My
> > concern is that not every officer needs the money, but the exchequer
> > will have to keep a seperate set of books to keep track of the $650
> > allocations. It is not a bad way of doing it, but I think with our
> > financial stability and overall good stewardship of the money,
> > Finn's suggestion fits our needs better.
> > Ermenrich
> > On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Cynnabar Seneschal via Barony
> > <barony at cynnabar.org> wrote:
> > My answers for Sir Gregoire?s questions: Final discussion or any
> > adjustments to my proposed wording will be done at the meetings. Is
> > there a proposed number of times an item can be brought up after it
> > is shot down once? [Finn] ? Is this really a concern? What?s to stop
> > someone doing the same thing now with the existing process? This is
> > where a good seneschal should step in (if this ever happens) and say
> > this was already decided upon by the group and move on.
> > Is there a limit to the number of $50 requests that can be made per
> > unit time? [Finn] ? No. And it was done on purpose. The key word is
> > ?occasionally?. This is to get the point that it should not be a
> > common/frequent item, but at the same time we should allow proposals
> > that may happen quickly back to back due to the need/situation at
> > the time. Trying to timeframe this into specific unit/time blocks
> > can create rules-lawyering (opps, you have to wait another 2 weeks
> > before you can ask that!) or even hamper simple requests that are
> > may be needed (Hey, can we get $20 to help with fighter food at a
> > demo next weekend?). On the other hand someone making $50 requests
> > every week should be questioned why and it should be readily
> > apparent that something is not right. Thus the group still needs to
> > approve.
> > Is there a minimum number of people required to be present to pass
> > the request? [Finn] ? Same was what is required for every group
> > approval on our current 3-meeting process.
> > Does this still follow consensus, or is it an absolute vote? [Finn]
> > ? Consensus, as normal.
> > If there are more feedback or suggestions, please let me know!
> > -Finn
> > From: Barony [mailto:barony-bounces at cynnabar.org] On Behalf Of
> > Greg Less via Barony
> > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 6:40 PM
> > To: Cynnabar Seneschal
> > Cc: Barony of Cynnabar
> > Subject: Re: [Cynnabar] Proposal to amend Cynnabar's Financial
> > policy Hi Finn-
> > Just as many non-Cynnabar people are on the email list as Facebook.
> > A few questions that come immediately to mind:
> > Is there a proposed number of times an item can be brought up after
> > it is shot down once?
> > Is there a limit to the number of $50 requests that can be made per
> > unit time?
> > Is there a minimum number of people required to be present to pass
> > the request?
> > Does this still follow consensus, or is it an absolute vote?
> > Thanks,
> > Gregoire
> > On Sep 19, 2014 6:32 PM, "Cynnabar Seneschal via Barony"
> > <barony at cynnabar.org> wrote:Greetings one and all.
> > We had discussed earlier at a business meeting ways we can help
> > speed up approving some smaller expenditures by officers in carrying
> > out the duties of their office. Several ideas and ways to do this
> > were brought forth. However, it kind of went by the wayside for a
> > bit. A couple of items came up recently that has rekindled me
> > thinking about this. Normally, I would just bring this up at a
> > meeting, but since the change I am going to propose below will
> > update our only ?official? document (our Financial Policy), I wanted
> > to give the chance for the larger group to give some feedback on this.
> > Please note: I am NOT putting this on Facebook. Many, many people
> > that are not Cynnabar are part of that group, so please keep this
> > conversation to the Cynnabar e-mail list or in person. In short, the
> > below update to the Financial Policy is to speed up minor purchases
> > by officers. The reason for this is to remove some of the
> > bureaucracy and unnecessary burden for minor items. But to still
> > have the budget items proposed and allow the request to be reviewed
> > and approved (or denied) by the group. Many ways were discussed
> > previously on how to limit (via wording/restrictions) these requests
> > so they don?t get abused. In the end, keeping things simple and
> > trusting both the officers in their role and the group in general to
> > know when things are being abused should help curtail any issues.
> > Thus my wording below of ?occasionally request? is there on purpose.
> > The proposed addition to the Cynnabar Financial Policy: 2. ii. 3.
> > Group officers may occasionally request minor expenditures (up to $50
> > or so) for carrying out the duties of their office. These minor
> > budget line item requests can be requested by the officer at a
> > business meeting and then approved or denied by the participants at
> > that same meeting. Feel free to give feedback here or to me
> > directly on adding this to our Financial Policy. This will be
> > brought up at a regular business meeting and run through the normal
> > 3 meeting discussion/approval process to make the final decision.
> > In service,-Finn, Seneschal.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Barony mailing list
> > Barony at cynnabar.org
> > http://lists.cynnabar.org/listinfo/barony
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Barony mailing list
> >
> > Barony at cynnabar.org
> >
> > http://lists.cynnabar.org/listinfo/barony
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --Forwarded Message Attachment--
> > From: barony at cynnabar.org
> > CC: barony at cynnabar.org
> > To: malagemann at gmail.com
> > Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 15:48:47 -0400
> > Subject: Re: [Cynnabar] Proposal to amend Cynnabar's Financial policy
> >
> > I approve of both Ermenrich and Finn's proposals.
> > ~Birke
> > On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Matt Lagemann via Barony
> > <barony at cynnabar.org> wrote:
> > Overall I like the changes. I agree that the people at the meeting
> > should be able to approve minor budget items in one evening. In my
> > four years of meetings, I cannot recall a single time a budget item
> > of $50 or less was ever an issue. I don't see how this could be
> > easily abused since anyone the group trusts as Seneschal can decide
> > that it needs three meetings or point out that this is another
> > request. Personally, if I had any qualms with the proposal, I would
> > say this: I don't think it goes far enough. I would like to see
> > this for any expenditure under $50 regardless if they are an
> > officer. The same restrictions would apply (must be occasional, is
> > not guaranteed, etc.). Rarely are small budget items brought up by
> > non officers, but I think it is worth considering. For instance
> > choir and dance practice are not ran by officers. What if they need
> > supplies (choir more likely than dance)? Just a thought. One thing
> > to stress: This does not mean that you can see someting under $50, b
> > uy it, and then bring it to the Barony with a guarantee that you
> > will be reimbursed. At that point you would be purchasing something
> > with a risk that it will not be approved. To Lady Bree's point: My
> > concern is that not every officer needs the money, but the exchequer
> > will have to keep a seperate set of books to keep track of the $650
> > allocations. It is not a bad way of doing it, but I think with our
> > financial stability and overall good stewardship of the money,
> > Finn's suggestion fits our needs better.
> > Ermenrich
> > On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Cynnabar Seneschal via Barony
> > <barony at cynnabar.org> wrote:
> > My answers for Sir Gregoire?s questions: Final discussion or any
> > adjustments to my proposed wording will be done at the meetings. Is
> > there a proposed number of times an item can be brought up after it
> > is shot down once? [Finn] ? Is this really a concern? What?s to stop
> > someone doing the same thing now with the existing process? This is
> > where a good seneschal should step in (if this ever happens) and say
> > this was already decided upon by the group and move on.
> > Is there a limit to the number of $50 requests that can be made per
> > unit time? [Finn] ? No. And it was done on purpose. The key word is
> > ?occasionally?. This is to get the point that it should not be a
> > common/frequent item, but at the same time we should allow proposals
> > that may happen quickly back to back due to the need/situation at
> > the time. Trying to timeframe this into specific unit/time blocks
> > can create rules-lawyering (opps, you have to wait another 2 weeks
> > before you can ask that!) or even hamper simple requests that are
> > may be needed (Hey, can we get $20 to help with fighter food at a
> > demo next weekend?). On the other hand someone making $50 requests
> > every week should be questioned why and it should be readily
> > apparent that something is not right. Thus the group still needs to
> > approve.
> > Is there a minimum number of people required to be present to pass
> > the request? [Finn] ? Same was what is required for every group
> > approval on our current 3-meeting process.
> > Does this still follow consensus, or is it an absolute vote? [Finn]
> > ? Consensus, as normal.
> > If there are more feedback or suggestions, please let me know!
> > -Finn
> > From: Barony [mailto:barony-bounces at cynnabar.org] On Behalf Of
> > Greg Less via Barony
> > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 6:40 PM
> > To: Cynnabar Seneschal
> > Cc: Barony of Cynnabar
> > Subject: Re: [Cynnabar] Proposal to amend Cynnabar's Financial
> > policy Hi Finn-
> > Just as many non-Cynnabar people are on the email list as Facebook.
> > A few questions that come immediately to mind:
> > Is there a proposed number of times an item can be brought up after
> > it is shot down once?
> > Is there a limit to the number of $50 requests that can be made per
> > unit time?
> > Is there a minimum number of people required to be present to pass
> > the request?
> > Does this still follow consensus, or is it an absolute vote?
> > Thanks,
> > Gregoire
> > On Sep 19, 2014 6:32 PM, "Cynnabar Seneschal via Barony"
> > <barony at cynnabar.org> wrote:Greetings one and all.
> > We had discussed earlier at a business meeting ways we can help
> > speed up approving some smaller expenditures by officers in carrying
> > out the duties of their office. Several ideas and ways to do this
> > were brought forth. However, it kind of went by the wayside for a
> > bit. A couple of items came up recently that has rekindled me
> > thinking about this. Normally, I would just bring this up at a
> > meeting, but since the change I am going to propose below will
> > update our only ?official? document (our Financial Policy), I wanted
> > to give the chance for the larger group to give some feedback on this.
> > Please note: I am NOT putting this on Facebook. Many, many people
> > that are not Cynnabar are part of that group, so please keep this
> > conversation to the Cynnabar e-mail list or in person. In short, the
> > below update to the Financial Policy is to speed up minor purchases
> > by officers. The reason for this is to remove some of the
> > bureaucracy and unnecessary burden for minor items. But to still
> > have the budget items proposed and allow the request to be reviewed
> > and approved (or denied) by the group. Many ways were discussed
> > previously on how to limit (via wording/restrictions) these requests
> > so they don?t get abused. In the end, keeping things simple and
> > trusting both the officers in their role and the group in general to
> > know when things are being abused should help curtail any issues.
> > Thus my wording below of ?occasionally request? is there on purpose.
> > The proposed addition to the Cynnabar Financial Policy: 2. ii. 3.
> > Group officers may occasionally request minor expenditures (up to $50
> > or so) for carrying out the duties of their office. These minor
> > budget line item requests can be requested by the officer at a
> > business meeting and then approved or denied by the participants at
> > that same meeting. Feel free to give feedback here or to me
> > directly on adding this to our Financial Policy. This will be
> > brought up at a regular business meeting and run through the normal
> > 3 meeting discussion/approval process to make the final decision.
> > In service,-Finn, Seneschal.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Barony mailing list
> > Barony at cynnabar.org
> > http://lists.cynnabar.org/listinfo/barony
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Barony mailing list
> >
> > Barony at cynnabar.org
> >
> > http://lists.cynnabar.org/listinfo/barony
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Barony mailing list
> >
> > Barony at cynnabar.org
> >
> > http://lists.cynnabar.org/listinfo/barony
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL:
> > <http://lists.cynnabar.org/pipermail/barony/attachments/20140922/3fdaa53b/attachment.html>
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Digest Footer
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Barony mailing list
> > Barony at cynnabar.org
> > http://lists.cynnabar.org/listinfo/barony
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of Barony Digest, Vol 59, Issue 15
> > **************************************
>
>
> Rev. Dr. Patricia A. Kenney, pastor and teacher
> St. Paul United Church of Christ
> 122 W Michigan Avenue
> Saline, MI 48176
> 734-730-9808 (cell)
>
> Since you cannot do good to all, you are to pay special attention to
> those who, by the accidents of time, or place, or circumstances, are
> brought into closer connection with you. ~ Augustine of Hippo
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Barony mailing list
> Barony at cynnabar.org
> http://lists.cynnabar.org/listinfo/barony
>
>
--
Elizabeth Calhoun
University of Michigan Law Library
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
(734) 764-9330
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cynnabar.org/pipermail/barony/attachments/20140923/b9ad0a70/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Barony
mailing list