Some believe that there is a problem in this situation. The club
went through a fair amount of hassle this summer to prevent
unbudgeted expenditures from happening. Still, at September's
meeting we did not have the numbers on hand to vote in a budget,
although the proposed budget was already written up (it just
wasn't at the meeting).
Since we didn't have a budget, should the club have shut down?
Constitutionally, until we had that budget, the club should not
have spend a dime (except that the officers can make discretionary
unbudgeted expenditures of $50 per month per officer). What that
means is complete shutdown: no rental of space in Freer or at the
Regent except what is already paid for, no publicity for classes,
even if we could find places to hold them, no money spent anywhere
for any reason. I don't think anyone is such a stickler that he
honestly believes that obeying the rules at that price is a better
option than breaking the rules to keep the club going.
But there is another issue. The club also spent about a thousand
dollars for new speakers. I believe it is agreed that if we had
passed the budget last month, we could not have bought the speakers.
Yet, a number of the officers, believing that these speakers were
a necessity, did make this purchase. The decision was made fairly
quickly, and there were those who objected, some for other reasons
than the fact that it was an unbudgeted expense (and wasn't even
on the budget as initially proposed). The purchase was not voted
on, even by the officers.
So where do we go from here?:
All right. We have rules. They weren't followed. If we as a club
are going to continue to have rules, we really need to make sure
they are followed. If we aren't going to follow the rules, we
need to at least be honest enough to get rid of them.
There used to be an emergency funding provision that an expenditure
could be voted on at any club function. This led to a lot of
unbudgeted expenses through poor planning, and was part of the
reason the club's constitution was changed. Still, it provided
an escape clause which would have prevented the recent problems.
All right, that won't work. We could punish the offenders and hope
that the example would prevent the situation from ever recurring.
Leave aside the issue of _how_ the club could punish anybody
(perhaps I'm the only one who finds the idea funny). Who is to
blame? Well, for lack of a budget let's start with:
1)Scott, for failing to bring the budget with him, then for failing
to immediately go home to _get_ the budget when he realized he
didn't have it with him.
2)Mark, for adjourning the meeting without a budget approved.
3)The other officers present, for letting Mark adjourn the meeting,
and for not collaborating to propose a rump budget.
4)All the other members present, for letting Mark adjourn the
meeting. I'm included in this one; it's documented that I was
present.
5)Any member who doesn't care enough about the club to take a few
minutes to attend the meetings.
Have I spread the blame around enough? OK. Let's forget the idea
of punishing the offenders.
Can we make sure this never happens again, without changing the
rules? Personally, I don't like the idea that whenever we don't
have a budget, Mark and Scott can get together and spend anything
they want out of the club's account, and later try to rationalize
it to the rest of us. The argument that waiting for the next
meeting to spend any money is too long is valid, though.
What can we do?
Well, first of all, the September meeting should not have been
adjourned without an approved budget. Period. Not even to set
a record for the shortest meeting in club history. This is not
just Mark's fault; all of us (including those not present)
contributed to this. This would have solved the problem of the
usual operating expenses. That still leaves the issue of the
"emergency" purchase of the speakers.
Frankly, I think the club should be able to anticipate anything
as important as the purchase of the speakers was supposed to
have been. In the real world, things don't always happen that
way. That's why the officers have their little slush funds.
Well, that wouldn't have covered the speakers, yet we "had to
have them."
There is a proper way to handle this. It involves taking
responsibility. Nobody should be spending club money unless
it's authorized by the club. That doesn't prevent anyone from
spending his own money and later being reimbursed by the club.
Yes, the speakers were $1000, and this was September, after
the dreaded month where assistants don't get paid. Still, if
it was really that urgent and important to get speakers,
those who thought so could have paid and hoped that the club
would later vote to reimburse them.
And if the club doesn't vote to reimburse them, the club's
money should not have been spent, and they effectively punished
themselves. Of course, if next month a bunch of officers come
back saying that they made an emergency unbudgeted trip to
Hawaii and they want the club to reimburse them, the club
needs to be free to tell them that that's not an appropriate
expense and vote it down.
That means that the meetings need to be run in a way to
encourage discussion, which isn't happening -- I believe that
if that ridiculous expenditure were actually made, the club
would probably approve it because we would be too timid to do
anything else. Can this situation be improved? I think so, but
it means stepping on a few people's egos, so I guess we're stuck
back where we started.
--J
"The river's just a river. . ."