Form 1023 Draft: Difference between revisions
From HacDC Wiki
(Suggestion for section IV) |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
4b. Should always be Yes. Currently we can spend up to $500 without approval. I suggest that should be limited to supplies, and any compensation should have to be approved in advance at a voting meeting of the membership. | 4b. Should always be Yes. Currently we can spend up to $500 without approval. I suggest that should be limited to supplies, and any compensation should have to be approved in advance at a voting meeting of the membership. | ||
4c. Following 4b. the documentation would be the approved minutes of the meeting where the compensation was approved. | 4c. Following 4b. the documentation would be the approved minutes of the meeting where the compensation was approved. | ||
I personally agree, but this clause deals specifically with compensation for services, i.e. paying staff for services. We're presently precluded from paying directors & officers for services via the bylaws. I agree that we should put a conflict of interest policy in place for reimbursements, and include a strict procedure for when and why we would pay anyone for their services...but they're not asking about straight reimbursements for goods or even the authorization to do so in this section --[[User:Nickfarr|Nickfarr]] 15:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:19, 14 April 2009
4a. Do you or will the individuals that approve compensation arrangements follow a conflict of interest policy? No 4b. Do you or will you approve compensation arrangements in advance of paying compensation? No 4c. Do you or will you document in writing the date and terms of approved compensation arrangements? No
-Dan Barlow comments
I think we need to be able to answer yes to these. 4a. Conflict of interest should be avoided. What do we consider a conflict of interest? Is there a legal definition we can point to and say "we use that"? 4b. Should always be Yes. Currently we can spend up to $500 without approval. I suggest that should be limited to supplies, and any compensation should have to be approved in advance at a voting meeting of the membership. 4c. Following 4b. the documentation would be the approved minutes of the meeting where the compensation was approved.
I personally agree, but this clause deals specifically with compensation for services, i.e. paying staff for services. We're presently precluded from paying directors & officers for services via the bylaws. I agree that we should put a conflict of interest policy in place for reimbursements, and include a strict procedure for when and why we would pay anyone for their services...but they're not asking about straight reimbursements for goods or even the authorization to do so in this section --Nickfarr 15:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)