| 1 |
On 12:50 Fri 05 Aug , Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 05-08-2011 00:51:51 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > I think we have to agree to disagree on this one. The corporate norm |
| 4 |
> > > of checks and balances is to have applications for expenditure, be it |
| 5 |
> > > for trivial sums or large capital items, to be signed off by |
| 6 |
> > > someone/some group with no interest in the outcome, so they can make |
| 7 |
> > > an objective decision. |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > e.g. I can sign off travel and expenses for others but not for myself. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > At least in my experience, each division would receive its own budget |
| 12 |
> > with independent spending authority. This is subject to auditing but |
| 13 |
> > only in retrospect, not prior to the expense taking place. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Do you suggest the Council should have money to spend? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
No, we're just way out on a weird analogy limb here. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Thanks, |
| 21 |
Donnie |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 24 |
Council Member / Sr. Developer |
| 25 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 26 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.com |
Archives