[Cynnabar] Barony Digest, Vol 59, Issue 16

Tue Sep 23 19:27:33 UTC 2014

Pardon another email on this topic:

I realize this puts me at peril of being accused of trying to have the last
word, but ... let me say, in *defense* of the proposal (and with Sir
Gregoire's comments fully in mind), that when Baronial officers do NOT ask
for reimbursement "routinely," but use their own means to cover the
necessities of their office (and I don't know how common that is for
others), to a degree it hides some financial realities that may better be
brought to light.  (This is my OPINION only.) Furthermore, I would never
want it implied or assumed that officer candidates of modest means be
discouraged from service due to lack of money to (privately) support their
office.  Again, this is my opinion.  My recollection of the SCA in 1978 was
that nobody had money: we were all students  And that continues to inform
my feelings about this matter.

And now you have *my* groat.  :)

In Service,

Godaeth

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Elizabeth Calhoun <lizcal at umich.edu> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cynnabar.org/pipermail/barony/attachments/20140923/0da92037/attachment.html>