[Board] Possibility for OSGeo (the foundation) to hold money for one of its chapters

[Frank Warmerdam]

On 10-12-16 11:53 AM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
> Hi Board,
>
> I would like to discuss the possibility for OSGeo (the foundation) to
> hold money for one of its chapters at today's board meeting. To
> accelerate the discussion, here is a description of what I have in mind
> for you to read before the meeting.
...

Daniel,

My opinion is that it would be a valuable service if, in some cases,
OSGeo was available to hold funds on behalf of local chapters.
Like Tyler, I am concerned about the overhead (financial, but more so
the bookwork, complexity and time spent on banking).

I'd like to see us improve our ability to handle transfers and manage
reserved funds held by OSGeo - something we already do for projects
in the sponsorship program though not necessarily very well.

I would note that OSGeo isn't a bank, and that money held on behalf
of a chapter would effectively be a donation to OSGeo.  When the
chapter requests money it would have to be dispersed for uses that
are within our 501(c)3 spending requirements.  For the most part that
isn't a problem but from time to time it could be.

> - At the time of deposit of the money, some clear rules should be
> provided by the local chapter on when and by whom the money can be
> withdrawn (e.g. require a signature from at least N members of the local
> chapter's steering committee, or from person A, B and C in the absence
> of a formal committee)

Hmm, this does get complicated.  The way it works with SPI holding funds
on behalf of projects is that there is a designated contact who
speaks on behalf of the project.  I'd suggest a similar approach in
this.   If there are any doubts, we (OSGeo) might hold out to hear
from others in the local chapter.

> - Should we require a motion to the board for a deposit and another
> motion for withdrawal, just to make sure there is a public record of
> those transactions?

Perhaps there could be a one day notice to the finance mailing list
before such a transaction is executed so there is notice and a chance
for someone to raise an issue.  I'm hesitant to put too many gateways
in place, especially a board motion.

If we wanted something a bit tighter, it might require agreement of
the bookkeeper (ie. Tyler) and the Treasurer to release funds back
to the chapter.

As for the "percentage overhead", and rules on number of transactions,
I'd prefer to keep things simple and avoid that.  I think it should
be made clear that this is done as favor of sorts to the chapter,
and that the speed of transactions is not guaranteed, and due to
limited manpower we really can't do too many transactions.  But, for
now, to leave this as a common sense, and "Tyler's sufferance" sort
of situation.  If it gets out of hand then we might have to set
specific policies.

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent