Hello Fellow Kenwoodians,
At the June 7th. Assoc. meeting we will be voting on the revised bylaws. I would like to discuss two of the proposed changes. One involves the duties of the Treasurer and another about voting proxies.
First is a change regarding the signature requirements of the Treasurer (Article VI, #7). The current bylaws require that the Treasurer will sign all checks with one other officer. The change would require that only the Treasurer would be required to sign checks. Also, any check over $150 must have prior board approval and a one time annual audit.
Either of these changes, by it own, may not be to bad, but the combination could be a problem. It says that a check over $150 will need prior approval, but if only one person has to sign the check, how do we know all large checks that are cashed have approval? There should be some ?“check?” on all checks. It could help catch possible mistakes. With only a onetime audit, a Treasurer could ?“borrow?” funds from the account with all good intentions to pay it back before the audit. Yes, with Bungalowfest and other things, we need to have more checks written, but when I was a board member under Presidents Bob Jeffery, Sue Winger, and Jeff Danner, we never found it a problem to have dual signatures. It only makes good sense in any corporation. My position in no way reflects the current Treasurer, I just feel we should protect ourselves in the future with increasing association revenues. I propose that we retain dual signatures on all checks.
Second is a change to proxy voting (Article X, #1). The current bylaws have a provision to allow voting in person or by proxy. The change would mean you must be in person to vote. As a member in good standing, anyone should be allowed to vote on all issues before the membership. Just because one cannot be in person to a meeting, they should not be forced to forfeit their voice. The reason given for this change is to ?“reflect current practices?”. No, we haven?’t had vote so important as to cause anyone to use a proxy. But, if we have no proxies, we vote as normal. So, what do we save by eliminating this option? There may a time when you feel strongly about an issue, but you have other obligations. I don?’t feel we should exclude anyone who wants to participate in the process. I propose we retain the proxy voting ability. I would ask: ?“Can any of you attend all the meetings??”
Thank You For Your Time,
Bill
P.S. Come to the meeting at Albright Methodist church at 2750 5th. Ave N.
Thursday, June 7th. at 7:30 p.m. and voice your opinion.
By Bill
At the June 7th. Assoc. meeting we will be voting on the revised bylaws. I would like to discuss two of the proposed changes. One involves the duties of the Treasurer and another about voting proxies.
First is a change regarding the signature requirements of the Treasurer (Article VI, #7). The current bylaws require that the Treasurer will sign all checks with one other officer. The change would require that only the Treasurer would be required to sign checks. Also, any check over $150 must have prior board approval and a one time annual audit.
Either of these changes, by it own, may not be to bad, but the combination could be a problem. It says that a check over $150 will need prior approval, but if only one person has to sign the check, how do we know all large checks that are cashed have approval? There should be some ?“check?” on all checks. It could help catch possible mistakes. With only a onetime audit, a Treasurer could ?“borrow?” funds from the account with all good intentions to pay it back before the audit. Yes, with Bungalowfest and other things, we need to have more checks written, but when I was a board member under Presidents Bob Jeffery, Sue Winger, and Jeff Danner, we never found it a problem to have dual signatures. It only makes good sense in any corporation. My position in no way reflects the current Treasurer, I just feel we should protect ourselves in the future with increasing association revenues. I propose that we retain dual signatures on all checks.
Second is a change to proxy voting (Article X, #1). The current bylaws have a provision to allow voting in person or by proxy. The change would mean you must be in person to vote. As a member in good standing, anyone should be allowed to vote on all issues before the membership. Just because one cannot be in person to a meeting, they should not be forced to forfeit their voice. The reason given for this change is to ?“reflect current practices?”. No, we haven?’t had vote so important as to cause anyone to use a proxy. But, if we have no proxies, we vote as normal. So, what do we save by eliminating this option? There may a time when you feel strongly about an issue, but you have other obligations. I don?’t feel we should exclude anyone who wants to participate in the process. I propose we retain the proxy voting ability. I would ask: ?“Can any of you attend all the meetings??”
Thank You For Your Time,
Bill
P.S. Come to the meeting at Albright Methodist church at 2750 5th. Ave N.
Thursday, June 7th. at 7:30 p.m. and voice your opinion.
By Bill
