On 12/15/2016 11:58 AM, Hilmar Lapp wrote: > Seconded. I think we’re all in the same boat here, and I’ll go out on a limb > here and say that we all collectively know that what Joshua reported is by no > means an isolated incident but a pattern that has been festering. Plus, we > are probably all agreed that of all functions SPI carries out on behalf of > its associated projects, disbursing the funds earmarked for them in a timely > and low-overhead manner is the single most important one. It is the one that > _has_ to work, or SPI isn’t a functioning fiscal sponsor in any sense of what > that means. > > I myself have had to follow up on almost every treasurer ticket, sometimes > multiple times. I now keep a copy of every ticket receipt and create myself a > reminder on my todo list 3 weeks into the future, rather than just > considering the reimbursement done when I hit send on the initial request. I > can do that, and my expenses needing reimbursement aren’t large enough to not > allow several months delay. But it does make evident a very poor professional > reliability of SPI as a fiscal sponsor that disburses project-earmarked funds.
While we have plans to get better software, that's a minority of the problem. We could really use paid staff for the routine paperwork. Relying entirely on a volunteer treasurer doesn't scale to the size SPI is now. --Josh _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
