Re: Vote Robinson for DPL!
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:39:16AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> You guys knew this was coming. When I shelved this flamewar months ago I made
> it clear that the problem would be revisited at a future date. That future
> date is here and I want to know how SPI has corrected its accounting
> problems. I want to know the filing procedures. I want to know why I can't
RTFM:
http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/minutes/
http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/minutes/20041207.txt
If you don't understand what's there, ask.
You obviously have logs of #spi, soyou know what's been discussed.
In a nutshell:
1. A regular treasurer's budget has been established
2. The treasurer has adopted a more informative reporting system
3. An assistant treasurer (Branden) has been selected
4. Banking is now done in a more convenient way for geographically
disparate people
Obviously the work is incomplete. But progress is being made, despite
your efforts to ignore it. Jimmy or Branden can probably speak more to
this. If you want to engage in a discussion about this, I submit that
spi-general is a more appropriate forum than debian-vote. Of course,
this is not the only business that SPI must attend to, and we've had
other things to deal with also.
> get paid for six months and why SPI's officers badmouth my company when we
It would have helped if:
a) you had sent the invoice to the SPI treasurer
b) you hadn't sent it in the middle of a box of papers that otherwise
needed only to be stored
c) you hadn't made contradictory remarks about whether or not you
desired payment at all
Branden is not an SPI officer. Jimmy is the SPI treasurer. Branden is
a member of the board only.
> ask to get paid. These are reasonable questions. Debian should be curious
> about how its monies are managed. How any DPL candidate can ignore the fact
> that SPI "misplaced" $18,000.00 of donation checks this year is beyond me. I
> think it is a valid and reasonable topic for discussion in this DPL race.
Actually, "this year" would be inaccurate. "last year" would even be
inaccurate. This would have to be 2003 and before, right? Maybe a very
small part of the beginning of 2004?
-- John
Reply to: