The statements go to the school, to our PTO box. Without documentation, I don't know that someone besides the treasurer scanning the summary would necessarily catch a mistake. And keep in mind-we've entered a new banking era where usually you don't even get the cancelled checks back unless you pay extra fees. So it's just the statement.
I've stated my questions/concerns and that I'll go along with the group's decision. The new pres does have a good point in that the 2 signature rule is a good policy, but since the banks don't enforce it, there's still a weakness.
Our meeting is tomorrow. If they feel strongly about it, I'll suggest we drop the two signatures rule.
If we have the treasurer prepare the check and another board member (usually the President) sign it, two board members are still reviewing each check.
Of course, the danger with this is that, down the line, a president could decide it's "easier" to keep the checkbook himself. Theoretically, the treasure would catch anything in the monthly reconciliation, but it opens some risk.
You know that I'm a big one for financial controls, but I agree with you on this -- it sounds like a step too far for most parent groups I know.
How 'bout proposing a compromise? Keep two sig rule (ncluding treasurer), but mandate that checking statements be received and opened by a third party. Third party's job would be to open the statement and do a quick review (no unapproved checks to treasurer or to cash, etc.) of statement. Treasurer would then get statement for processing/balancing.
Seems to me this would be much less cumbersome day-to-day and would still add a nice level of security for financials.
We are in the process of writing new bylaws for our middle school. The current president comes from a band booster environment where the bylaws prohibit the treasurer from being one of the authrorized check signers.
I can see where this would be a strong policy in the checks and balances. The treasurer prepares all financial reports and maintains the check book. He would WRITE the check, but not sign it.
Do any of you do this? I'm all for good controls, but this means 3 officers must be involved in every check (since we require 2 signatures). I'm afraid it might be too cumbersome for our level of financial dealings.
