|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
While I strongly support this, there are a few substantive items (binding) that force me to vote disapprove on the text as it stands.
5.1.x, first line on page 2. Grammar problem, “approved” -> “approval”.
5.1.y, first line of second paragraph. Grammar problem, “may wish or need operate” -> “may wish or need to operate”.
5.1.y, last sentence of second paragraph is mostly redundant with text of 5.1.x, and very redundant with 5.1.y.1. Recommend change the sentence in 5.1.x to read “A WG/TAG may sponsor an interim session if and only if the group is operating with treasury.” Delete the sentence in 5.1.y.
5.1.y.1, item 4, sixth line. Grammar problem, “authorizer signer” -> “authorized signer”
5.1.y.1, item 8. This summary report should also be provided to the LMSC treasurer.
5.1.y.1, item 12 (binding comment). As host, the funds collected will be co-mingled with the WG/TAG treasury. It is an inappropriate burden to require that a surplus be separately maintained on the WG/TAG accounts as being unusable for any valid WG/TAG expense. There needs to be some method for the hosted WGEC/TAGEC to agree to the disposition of their share of a meeting surplus, so it doesn’t have to be continually carried as a separate journal entry but can be incorporated into the host WG/TAG operating reserve.
5.1.y.2 (binding). The introductory paragraph is very confusing because it indicates that each WG/TAG must receive approval to operate with treasury, but they can’t have a WG/TAG treasury if they receive an additional approval for a joint treasury. I believe the intent would be something like: “Two or more WGs/TAGs, with the approval of the LMSC EC, may elect to operate with a joint treasury.
WGs/TAGs that operate with a joint treasury shall have no other treasury. The merger of separate WG/TAG treasuries into a joint treasury or the splitting of a joint treasury into separate WG/TAG treasuries requires approval of the LMSC EC.”
5.1.y.2. Grammar and formatting problem. There is only one exception, so “exceptions” -> exception, and remove the list numbering.
5.1.y.3, item 1, first line. The first sentence as written is in conflict with the close consultation requirement of the last sentence. Change to read: “The Host is solely responsible for the finances and operation of the session.”
5.1.y.3, item 5, fifth line. Grammar problem, “Host on” -> “Host of”.
5.1.y.3, item 5, third line (binding). This creates a restriction on the hosts that I believe will make it harder to find hosts. To me, a strict interpretation of the “beneficial interest” restriction would prevent the host from buying equipment which it donates to the WG/TAG (a reasonable way in my mind to get rid of a small surplus. The problem is particularly a problem when a financial year occurs before the next interim meeting is scheduled. In some cases, this would force the host to rebate funds or show a profit from the meeting on their balance sheet (typically very ugly). I believe the important thing is that it is exclusively at the host’s option to dispose of the surplus, and the WG/TAG is forbidden from deciding how the surplus is handled.