[Noisebridge-discuss] Re: Draft Finance Policy
Meredith L. Patterson
mlp at thesmartpolitenerd.com
Wed Oct 1 00:34:10 UTC 2008
Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> jim wrote:
>> Noisebridge corporate account checks should require two
>> signatures, any two of four Noisebridge members may sign
>> checks (or all board members or all officers may sign
>> checks: the important point is to require two signatures
>> for a check). Those who can sign checks should also have
>> the responsibility for reporting current financial status
>> at regular times.
>>
>
> It's possible that we'll implement something like this. I suspect the
> limiting factor is two-fold:
>
> 1) Banks are probably not going to like this very much.
Requiring two-of-N board signatures is fairly normal for corporate
accounts, actually; it's handled on our account's side. Usually it's
only applied to checks over a certain amount (e.g., checks for <$X can
be signed by one of N, checks over $X must be signed by two of N) but
you can set N to whatever you like.
>> Consider a second short-term CD or other interest-bearing
>> account as a complement to the checking account. Such an
>> account should have a restriction to control release of
>> funds, perhaps funds can only be released to the checking
>> account.
>>
>
> This is a great idea. If you have some suggestions for a bank that can
> handle all of the above, that would be wonderful! We've put up a lot of
> banking stuff on the finances page. Do you have any preference?
Most banks do this. As an additional suggestion: take the amount you
want to place into an interest-bearing instrument and divide it by 3.
Purchase one 3-month CD the first month, a second 3-month CD the second
month and a third the third month. This way, there's a CD maturing every
month, so if it's not needed, its value+interest can be rolled over into
a new CD; if it is needed, there's money available every month.
> We do not need _anything_ currently. Loaning things is probably a very
> bad idea. If you're burdened with something and Noisebridge could use it
> or would want it, please by all means donate it. When we're a 501c3,
> this will especially be great. With that said, we're probably going to
> destroy or consume a lot of things. It's unrealistic to want it back and
> it may even create personal drama when someone brings in "their"
> do-hickey that is "misused" or otherwise not available to them on their
> personal whims.
Did we ever talk much about how we're going to handle reusable items
that get broken? I have a fairly absurd amount of lab glassware that I'm
willing to bring in to bootstrap bio- and chem-hacking. Glassware
breaks; this kind of stuff just happens. However, I am a little worried
about what happens if someone breaks the $150 Liebig condenser and
doesn't have the money to replace it. (It's a meter-long *piece of
glass* that gets exposed to temperature gradients. Someday, it will break.)
Though I suppose one way around that would be to build less-breakable
equipment where possible; it's pretty easy to make a condenser from
copper or pvc pipe, though non-glass equipment is harder to clean.
I can't make the meeting tonight, unfortunately, but if this does come
up, I'd like to hear how people feel about it.
--mlp
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list