Yes, that's basically it. I've tracked embezzle stories (waaaay too many of them) for 11 years now, and I can't think of a single one that's been a sophisticated conspiracy. 9 times out of 10 it's been the Treasurer writing checks to cash or using parent group checks (or cash withdrawls) to pay for personal items.
If said treasurer opens the checking account, she could very simply remove the 2 or 3 checks which were questionable .... and make things much more tricky to discover.
What I like most about the "someone else opens" rule is that it is an extremely simple deterrent. Audits and committee work, but they're much more involved than the simple envelope rule.
I'd wager that 75% of those embezzles I've tracked wouldn't have happened at all if the envelope rule was in place. The potential embezzler would have known that getting caught was highly likely. And that would be enough.
I use the rule in our business here, and I trust our books people completely. It's just a simple, solid practice.
An article on the blog (
PTO Today Blog Blog Archive Colorado PTO embezzle _ $15,000
) suggests that a "non-signer" open the bank statement each month. In my case, I have a non-signer review the statement, but I like to go ahead and reconcile the account in Quicken before I hand the statement over, since it can take a week or two to connect with the non-signer.
What is the advantage to having the non-signer review it *first*? Is this in case the embezzler forgets to cover his tracks and is reminded by the statement?
