On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 17:20 -0700, Blackace wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 16:57 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 17:28 +0000, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > >
> > > I have no idea what Capital One will want --- William does, though.
> > No requirements, one or more and they can be officers or trustees. They
> > did not seem to care. That might change when we actually go to open an
> > account. But as it stands now. We specify who we want on file with
> > signature/authorization authority. It does not have to be all officers.
> But it should be, putting all of Gentoo's financial assets under the
> control of one or two people increases the odds of problems...say one
> gets in a car wreck and one...I don't know...buys it in a terrible soft
> serve machine accident in the dev lounge... :)
I have no problem with more than one. Just not something that is a
requirement by Capital One, at this time. Compared to others that
require all. It's not a big deal really if they are US Citizens. But if
they are not, then it gets a bit complicated.
We can put all Trustees, and VP, President, and Treasure on the account
as far as I am concerned. I don't really care, it's just the
> Also remember, when a corp opens a bank account (or makes really any
> other decision about the corp), the officers of the corp, which I gather
> is the trustees at this point,
Yes, most trustees ( not including me ) are serving dual roles, trustees
> need to meet and vote on a resolution to
> open the account, and this needs to be documented in the books of the
> corp...yes, a lot of people skip this step, but skipping it's generally
> not a good idea, it's easy enough to meet and say "let's open an account
> with XYZ", "second", etc., and the president could just print out the
> IRC log, sign it, and send it to the secretary for their signature and
> to store it with the rest of the records.
That's fine we are not actually opening the account at this time. But we
have met on the topic of bank account and did vote to authorize action.
If we need to be so fine as to vote on every detail. I am sure we will,
but at this time. There isn't to many options. So voting and any no's or
complications there. Wouldn't do to much good ;)
But we do vote, meeting logs and summaries should reflect that.
> Not maintaining good records could easily lead to NFP status being
> stripped or the corporate entity being forcibly dissolved, not worth the
Fully aware and there are other issues there. Tons of work still to be
done like financial reporting and accounting. Which is still part of
federal requirements. Much less what we have done on a state level so
far. State doesn't really determine NFP status, feds do :)
Failure to maintain records on voting this bank or that. Will hardly do
much harm if any to us. Considering what else remains to be done and
possible issues there.
William L. Thomson Jr.