We have been really lucky that we haven't had any bad checks but our PTO also doesn't sell anything and depends on special events for fundraising. We do have it arranged with our school that their collections manager in accounting would handle the situation for us mainly to help us out and the school does (unfortunatly) have a parent that has written several checks for school lunch that they have been talking to for sometime so they have set a policy.
I wouldn't announce the names, having just gone through some rough water (if you will) ourselves, no one needs to know.
I would say it is not appropriate to list the names of people with NSF checks to the PTA/PTO on the treasurers report. There are many laws today with respect to collections, etc. For example, a collection agency may not state their company name on the outside of an envelope (return address section) when sending out a collection letter.) It is not material for all treasury report eyes to have knowledge of how much each person is liable for and who they are. A total of outstanding nsf check collection amounts plus bank fees with a grand total not in nsf check collections should be sufficient. However, the president or chairperson should have knowledge of the offenders if desired or needed. An exception to the confidentiality of nsf offenders name would be in the event of a new fund raising or revenue exchange transaction in which there is a strong possibility the offender may pass along another bad check before clearing any previous obligation(s).
Our treasurer makes a call to try to collect the bad check, but we'd never embarrass a member at a public meeting--sometimes it's an oversight, sometimes it IS deliberate.
In the case of the person who always gives a bad check which she eventually makes good--why not just hold the check and let her redeem it rather than incurring fees? She apparently has some kind of problem with her accounting skills. Maybe charge her a nominal fee or something, but why incur NSF fees on your own account? Our bank charges US for each bounced check we deposit.
The treasuer KNOWS who our problem check people are and can call the bank to make sure it's good before we deposit if necessary. We try to avoid the problem. So far, we not had to write anything off as not collected.
Luckily we deal in cash only, banking in this country is a nightmare! Anyway, I would not publish names of bad check writers. That information should be private between the treasurer and the president (to contain gossip), the person should be notified in writing, and they should be put on cash only status if the problem continues.
Before the beginning of the year I contacted our local police department who was happy to provide me with written verification of the procedures to be followed if/when a bad check was written. As a board we discussed whether or not to include this at one of our first meetings of the year, and I was voted against. We agreed that we would take those steps if necessary, but that people might be offended if we brought this up in a meeting and had it in the minutes. I can certainly see it both ways. Since then we have had a couple of bad checks. Both have been "made good" on. One thing I would suggest in the future is that if you receive two bad checks from any one person in one year - they go to cash status. My board does agree with me on that one, by the way.
I managed a business for many years and we posted names of returned check folks for awhile. I never felt comfortable with this. Sometimes people are having a hard time and just make miscalculations. Besides, is it really anybody's business other than the person who wrote the check and the person they wrote it to? Our PTO handles bad checks with just the treasurer and the president. The treasurer notifies me when we get a check and I call the person and tell them. Our bank charges us $5 and we pass that cost on to the check writer. We've never had anyone not pay us, so I don't know how we would handle that. I guess just write it off. I would hate to cause bad feelings and have rumors running rampant over someone's mistake.
