[UK-TUG] SEGM no content!

[Jay Hammond]

Dear UKTUG members,

I think that we should all vote on the motions. No-one seems to have 
commented on them.

Financial oversight:
see motion3

I'm considering  voting in favour of motion 3 and against 4.

Here is why:

While UKTUG has low turnover, we need to decide what checks we need 
to make on the finances of UKTUG .

we have two obvious options, we can look at the bank statements 
ourselves and satisfy ourselves that the outgoings are what we 
consider reasonable.  

This is the mechanism provided by having duplicate statements sent to 
someone independent. as proposed in Motion 4 

Given that less than 10% of uktug members bothered to vote or attend 
the AGM,  and that there has been no discussion as yet in this SEGM, 
I doubt that many members will actually try to look at the bank 
statements.  Indeed, who, apart from committee members, feels that 
they personally would? I exclude committee members because the 
financial oversight is to keep the committee honest and protect it 
from malefactors.   If as I fear, no-one checks up on them, there 
won't be any protection for them or UKTUG funds..

Or we can find someone we trust to look at the accounts and give an 
opinion. This is the model we have used in the past. We do not have 
to use professional accountants for this purpose, and in the past we 
did not, generally.


I personally will use my best efforts to locate a reasonably priced 
trustable person with some financial skills  to act as scrutineer for 
the accounts if I am asked to do so. I have a good chance of 
succeeding. I think about £100 should cover the fees for a year.

I therefore suggest that the SEGM  request a scrutineer be appointed 
for the financial year 2011/12  tasked with giving an educated but 
not professional view of the accounts.



Jay Hammond

homemade at talktalk.net