Who can sign checks (was BoD..)

[Lori Jones]

>> Kat said:
>> However, any treasurer signing checks to cover items with SCA 
>> funds  *should* know these guidelines.

> Stefan replied:
> Hmmm. I may not be clear on things but I thought that the baronial
> checks had to have two out of three signatures. Thus the exchecker
> need not be the one signing the checks. The other two being the
> senschale and ?. 

Here's kind-of a *brief?* run down on SCA signatory rules:

You're right.  SCA bank accounts are required to be 2 signature 
accounts, and 2 signatories must sign each check.  A local group 
generally has 4 signatories, or people authorized to sign, on their 
account.  

The group account must meet the following corporate and 
kingdom guidelines:
1) The final person to be on the signatory card  *must* be the 
Kingdom Treasurer
2) Copies of a legal ID and SCA membership card must be on file with 
the kingdom treasurer for ALL signatories on any SCA bank account.
3) No two signatories may reside at the same physical address.  
(There may be others, but these are the major ones of which I am 
aware).

The group signatories are usually the treasurer, seneschal and 
baron OR baroness (if applicable).  These individuals also usually  
serve as the financial committee for the group (3 people who have 
final say on where the groups money will be spent). 

As to who should actually sign checks:  the group's warranted 
treasurer should sign ALL checks (after all, it is *their* job).  
They are also the only person who should have possession of the 
checkbook at *any* time.  Other signatories should be used only to 
*counter-sign* and provide accountability - not to serve as "acting" 
treasurer.  Only in very rare circumstances (treasurer on long 
vacation, suddenly moved away, etc.) should a check be cut without 
the warranted treasurer's signature.  If a check absolutely MUST be 
cut, it would be best to get permission from the Kingdom treasurer, 
in the interest of proper CYA.   

On a personal note, based on what I've actually seen over the past 
several years, there is no such thing as a "financial emergency".  
There is almost always a "by the book" way to handle a problem.  
Usually, someone will agree to cover the cost of the expense and be 
reimbursed later. 

> Perhaps anyone authorised to sign checks should
> have this treasurers training or at least an abreviated course.

That would be a *wonderful* idea! :-)  However, it has been  
difficult (to say the least) to convince landed Barons/Baronesses 
that attending this meeting is a good thing to do.  Most feel they 
have been playing long enough that they know most of the rules. 
Problem is, these aren't the "same old rules".  With the publication 
of the new Corporate Treasurer's handbook, many of the rules are less 
than a few years old.  Often, they consider knowing the rules to be 
the job of the officer.  I don't know, but I think the seneschals 
have classes where some of these things might be covered (or not). 

Personally, I think financial liability is important enough that I'd 
want to be sure I knew ALL the rules before I signed a check to spend 
the money of a national corporation....

To respond on a sideline to another related posting, I wholeheartedly 
agree that these rules ought to be more readily accessible.  The plan 
has been to construct a Kingdom Treasurer's Handbook to be 
published for reference, but time has not been at a premium to allow 
for it's completion.  I believe the next kingdom treasurer, Don 
Donald Armstrong, has plans to take on this project.  Meanwhile, the 
new Kingdom Law should include several of the newer, more important 
rules in an effort to help get everyone up to speed with Corporate.

> Stefan li Rous
> markh at risc.sps.mot.com

Katrionna MacLochlainn
Deputy Kingdom Treasurer (for only a few more short weeks!)
Barony of Wiesenfeuer, Ansteorra 
****************************
Lori Campbell
Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics, Library
LJONES at ossm.edu

(Opinions are my own, not those of my employer)