[Noisebridge-discuss] Re: Draft Finance Policy

[Jacob Appelbaum]

Meredith L. Patterson wrote:
> 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.


He suggested "any two of four Noisebridge members" and not merely two of
N board memebers. That's what I was responding to...

> 
>>> 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.

That sounds like a nice idea. Someone should do that research and bring
a proposal forward.

> 
>> 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.

We're going to break everything at some point. We'll probably not have
insurance and so we'll have to consider some things simply consumable.
Those things will hopefully have a budget and we can ensure we're never
out of Liebig condensers.

Best,
Jake