[OSGeo Finance] Motion: Adopt Financial Reports

[Ken Tamura]

In order to help ensure project spending is controlled, project managers should issues detail project plans each budget period about how they will spend their money.  These plans are approved by finance committee and board.  Then how the project manager spends the money is review each year to review if spending was to plan and reasonable costs were applied.

This is a suggested process and audit control mechanism.




Ken Tamura
Geospatial Solutions of Autodesk, Inc.
415-507-8313 (w)    415-299-1704 (c)


-----Original Message-----
From: finance-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:finance-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Dave McIlhagga (External)
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 7:13 AM
To: Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo)
Cc: Finance List
Subject: Re: [OSGeo Finance] Motion: Adopt Financial Reports

Yes - i see what you mean.

I guess my concern is that our income for 2007 feels "skewed" to me
since the expense side isn't really controllable by the board. Frank
and the GDAL project have full autonomy to issue a contract without
any approval required from the finance side at any time -- and to me
this is effectively a liability. In a sense - it's an arm's length
transaction from OSGeo - but not really - an oddity to say the least.


Anyway - in the interest of getting this cleared up -- perhaps we
could have a special note for this year included in the financials
indicating that the organization's net income for 2007 includes $
XXXX of unallocated project funding.

With this minor change - I would be ready to support adoption of the
financials by the Finance committee with a recommendation that the
board accept the 2007 financials, clearing the way for approval of the
2007 annual report.

Is everyone else ok with this?

Dave



On 8-Aug-08, at 9:23 AM, Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) wrote:

> Thanks Dave,
>
> I believe that only when a contract is issued to actually spend the
> funds, should it be listed as a liability (e.g. a future bill for
> services).  That is, it shows as a liability when commitment to
> spend the money is made. If we took the other approach then
> everything that was in our budget would be treated like a liability
> too since we plan to spend it. and I don't think that's what you're
> after.  Being able to show how much of our donations "belongs" to
> GDAL should be good enough I would think.
>
> Tyler
>
> On 8-Aug-08, at 3:34 AM, Dave McIlhagga wrote:
>
>> I don't see where the money available for the GDAL project exists
>> as a liability on our books. ie, the $13,031 amount shown as income
>> for GDAL and available for contracting by the GDAL project as of
>> Dec 31 '07. I believe this should be a liability on our books --
>> Ken was this not what made sense to you?
>

_______________________________________________
Finance mailing list
Finance at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/finance