Troop accounts and Eagle project money

[Gonzo1]

I was absent from a recent committee meeting when "it was decided" to place funds raised for certain Eagle projects be placed in a separate account in a separate bank.

 

Is this proper?

 

If not, how can I encourage to committee to get this money into the regular troop account?

 

Should I ask someone from the CO (IH or CO Treasurer) to approach the committee and "remind" them that everything raised by the troop really belongs to the CO and get those funds where they belong?

 

Please help.

 

Gonzo

[ScoutNut]

If these funds were raised under the leadership of a Scout working for his Eagle project, then I have no problem with setting them aside into a separate account. This makes sure that when the Scout needs them, they are available, and not accidentally used for Summer Camp expenses.

 

I do not see the need to use a separate bank.

 

 

 

 

[John-in-KC]

Not quite sure why "some" Eagle projects would have their funds fenced and others not.

 

Funds raised by an Eagle Candidate for his leadership project (when funds are given vice access to commercial accounts or materials in kind) need to go the project first. They are more funds of the Scout and his project sponsor than they are even Troop funds.

 

When the project is complete, the Scout, to my way of thinking, has a duty to inform his donors and ask for guidance on funds disposition. The funds may go to the Chartered Partner, or they may go right back to the donor.

 

It's the same concept when the Council Program Director calls me about staff scholarship $$$. I donated them for Reservation N, but he's short at Reservation B. He asks me if I'm willing to underwrite Reservation B, as all who need scholarships at N were covered. Of course I said yes, but the courtesy shows a true stewardship of the entrusted monies.

 

My thoughts.

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm.

 

Not sure why this is an adult or committee issue, eh? Seems like this should really be up to da Eagle candidate(s). Part of showin' leadership and planning is to demonstrate how to handle money. A troop might offer to run things through it's account if an Eagle candidate requests it, or a committee might ask an Eagle candidate to demonstrate good financial controls (have an adult also approve expenditures). But it's mostly da Eagle candidate's game.

 

Sorry, Gonz, but you're a bit off-base, too, eh? Eagle project funds are raised on behalf of the organization the boy is doin' service for, not on behalf of the troop/CO. The funds have to go for that service project, eh? If there's any excess, the Eagle candidate has to either return it to the donors or donate it accordin' to the donor's wishes (usually to the organization that it was collected for).

 

I don't see this as being a problem, if the Eagle candidate makes that request/agreement with the committee for financial oversight as part of his project. It's a bit unusual to go through all the trouble of openin' a separate bank account, but that might be helpful so that the Eagle Candidate can be a signer on the checks. A lot of troops offer some version of this service to Eagle candidates, and I've seen some Eagle Pre-Project Review Boards "insist" if there's a lot of $$ involved.

 

Yah, now da more important question... why is this your problem? Don't I remember that you're a first-year parent and ASM, not an Eagle advisor or committee member? . Sometimes Courteous and Loyal mean lettin' other people do their jobs so they let you do yours. Relax a bit, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[Gonzo1]

Beavah,

Yeah (or yah), I'm a first year parent with 25+ years BSA experience. I'm asking the question here FIRST, because it sounded fishy to me. One committee member said the excess funds raised by one Eagle candidate could then be used by another candidate later. I just thought that to be a bit awkward.

 

As I understand it, the money for ESLP wasn't raised by the scout, but rather by a big wig in one of the political parties.

 

It's not MY problem, I'm curious. There seems to be the potential for money problems. The troop has once checking account, to date, the treasurer and secretary can sign checks. But Only one signature is required. Expenditures up to $50 do not need committee pre-approval. The troop has about $9,000 plus about $4,000 (I'm told) for someone's ESLP. That's a lot of money. With only one signature, if the secretary gets ticked off, the account could get cleaned out.

 

Just curious, I haven't brought it up at the committee, and now after reading everyone's posts, I probably won't.

 

Thanks,

 

Gonzo

[Aquila calva]

I think this is a good question. The idea of a troop setting up a separate checking account for the purpose of funding Eagle service projectSSSS (plural) should raise some questions.

 

Who gets check signing authority? A young man under the age of 18? I dont think so..Bankers might think this very unusual and some would not allow it.

 

Who is raising the money? Who is asking for money to support these Eagle projects? Many ESLPs are done to assist a NON-PROFIT 501c3 in accomplishing some goal. If the scout is receiving (or soliciting) tax-deductible donations to support the non-profit purpose, then the money belongs to THAT non-profit organization, not the troop. What is the TROOP doing in the middle of this? It isnt the troops money. Isnt there some rule about this money-management issue in the Eagle project packet?

 

This needs more thought and consideration. It raises too many questions to pass the smell test.

 

[ScoutNut]

"As I understand it, the money for ESLP wasn't raised by the scout, but rather by a big wig in one of the political parties."

 

Is a LOT different than -

 

"Should I ask someone from the CO (IH or CO Treasurer) to approach the committee and "remind" them that everything raised by the troop really belongs to the CO and get those funds where they belong?"

 

 

How was the money "raised" by the political "big wig"? Did the BW go out stumping for donations from community, business, & political buddies? Was this a direct donation from the BW for a specific Eagle project? Was this a donation from the BW direct to the Troop for no specific purpose? If this was targeted by the BW for an Eagle project, has that project been finished? Is the $4,000 excess from that one project?

 

You are right, $4,000 is a lot of money. If that money was donated to be used for one specific Eagle project, that is the ONLY thing that money should be used for. If the project is over, it is the responsibility of the Eagle Scout to get permission from the donor (the political BW) to use the leftover monies for other, upcoming Eagle projects. The Committee can not just assume that the $4,000 is available, so perhaps the permissions have already been obtained.

 

With that much money I can understand why they wanted a separate account. As for the Secretary, if he gets "ticked off" I'm sure he can wipe out the Troop's account also. As can the Treasurer. Keeping all of the money in the Troop's account will not stop this. Having 2 signatures required is a good thing for all accounts.

 

[John-in-KC]

I absolutely agree on 2 signatures.

 

From experience, we gave the SM a $50 petty cash. He accounted for it.

 

The political BW (going back to Gonzo's post) is scary. Whether Dem or Rep at 1600PA Ave, the IRS is going after non-profits who make political speech. That money needs a very clear audit trail, and the Chartered Partner needs to be satisfied the funds will not get them in hot water with IRS.

[Gonzo1]

Political Big Wig has a son in the troop and is on the committee, he asked for donations from some of his friends for ELSP for one or more boys. The good ol' boys decided it would be too hard for the treasurer to keep track of everything, so they (good ol' boys) put the ELSP money in a different bank. My thought is that if the treasurer can keep everything else separate, why not this money too?

 

Treasurer keeps accounts for popcorn, cummercamp, etc. why not ELSP money too?

 

I'm definately recommending two signatures on all checks on both accounts.

 

I was under the impression that money raised belonged to the CO, but I can see in this case where money raised for the ELSP would belong to the intended recipient, whether spent for materials / supplies or not.

 

Thanks,

 

Gonzo

 

[Beavah]

Political Big Wig has a son in the troop and is on the committee, he asked for donations from some of his friends for ELSP for one or more boys. The good ol' boys decided it would be too hard for the treasurer to keep track of everything, so they (good ol' boys) put the ELSP money in a different bank. My thought is that if the treasurer can keep everything else separate, why not this money too?

 

Yah, not sure who da "good ol' boys" are, eh?

 

Sounds like what the troop is doin' is creating a donated fund to support ESLP's within the troop. I've known one or two troops do somethin' like that. I'm not particularly fond of it, because I like da Eagle candidates to work out funding on their own, but it's OK I guess. It does make for some "bigger & better" projects. In this case, the CO/troop is receivin' donations restricted to ESLP support. It should have a mechanism for boys to "apply" for support for their project, kinda formal-like. It can be in one or two bank accounts, that's sorta trivial, as long as the account is under the control of the troop committee.

 

This is even a good thing, buildin' up a bunch of donors to the troop, eh? Great way to support kids in need, future high adventure trips, etc.

 

Treasurer keeps accounts for popcorn, cummercamp, etc. why not ELSP money too?

 

I'm definately recommending two signatures on all checks on both accounts.

 

Gonz, don't get me wrong mate, but this is not your job!!!. Yeh got no business interferin' with troop committee operations, tellin' the treasurer how he/she should work, insistin' on different accounting oversight. None. Same as they shouldn't tell you as an ASM how to organize patrols or when to go campin'.

 

If yeh feel a real need to be involved in the committee level of da program, yeh have to submit your resignation as an ASM and apply for a committee seat (and then stay out of da youth side of the operation, eh?) . No volunteers are perfect. Be patient and willin' to accept "good enough."

 

Beavah

 

[FScouter]

"Gonz, don't get me wrong mate, but this is not your job!!!. Yeh got no business interferin' with troop committee operations, tellin' the treasurer how he/she should work, insistin' on different accounting oversight."

 

I disagree with that none-of-your-business philosophy. It may be the function of another adult, but if they are screwing it up, it is the responsibility of any and every other member of the unit to speak up in an effort to get things fixed. Thank you for your kind service and all that but you gotta do the job right. $13,000 and separate banks outside the overview of the treasurer is more than "nobody's perfect". That's just screwy. Keeping quiet and looking the other way is irresponsible and invites more of the same.

[Gonzo1]

Beavah,

As you know, I usually agree withyour comments. I have even sought out your advice through PM's. So, let's look at it this way:

 

Beavah is the Troop Outdoor Activities Guy and happens to notice the SM driving his pick up truck with 2 scouts in the back. Do you say something?

 

Let's say ASM Beavah notices that Timmy is sgned off for First Class, but hasn't been on the required number of outings. Do you say something to the Advancement Guy?

 

Neither is really your business.

 

Now, Beavah, I'm just trying to make the point that I'm asking the question HERE before doing anything else.

 

13K is a lot of money. There is a group of scouts and their parents who fear outsiders, like me. They don't like me and I couldn't care less. They don't like that I try to do it by the book. After all, that's why we have a book. Here's another example: No MBC in the troop is actually listed as MBC. They didn't kow what Blue Cards were until I mentioned it 6 months ago. So, if asking about $4,000 or whther we use 2 signatures isn't my job, whose is it? It seems reasonable to at least ask.

 

Beavah, I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to clarify.

Gonzo

[Beavah]

Yah, Gonz, there's a balance here, eh?

 

It's always possible to point to the rare circumstance when even a bystander has to intervene. But those are rare circumstances, eh? If every time someone thinks "it ain't by the book" or "I wouldn't do it that way" they raise objections, we usually call that someone a "troll" or a "helicopter"... or worse . Think of Merlyn's perpetual "I wouldn't do it that way" threads to us. In a forum it can be either fun or annoyin'; in a troop it's either annoyin' or destructive.

 

You've talked about how you feel when some of those same committee members interfere with da program side by trying to dictate "one night only" outings on weekends. They have all kinds of (what they believe are) legitimate reasons for interferin'. It still ain't the best way to go, eh?

 

What you're doin' is the same thing, eh? The committee should trust da SM and ASM with the program side, even when they have individual objections or reservations. You should give 'em the same courtesy. After all, this wasn't just a treasurer or CC sneakin' off, this was a decision made at a full committee meeting. If you really feel the committee can't be trusted, yeh need to go find a new troop, mate. You don't want to become "that guy". As in "Oh, no, here comes that guy again!" . Feelin' that you're "right" or "by da book" just isn't an excuse for polarizin' a kids program into "us" vs. "them."

 

So, IMO, there's nuthin' that you've said that indicates the committee is doin' anything wrong here. They've done a good job fundraisin', they've created a restricted fund which honors the intent of the donors, they've deposited in a separate bank account for ease of accountin'. Single or dual signature checks is a financial control that's at their option; frankly dual-signature checks are mostly placebo protection. My guess is most troops use single-signature accounts, and that's OK. I'd be more worried that they have a fair method in place for awardin' grants, myself.

 

It's your call, my friend. Yeh asked for opinions. That's mine.

 

Beavah

 

[kb6jra]

Regarding the control of the checking account. My troop has $18K in the bank with more on the way, we're building our own Scouthouse and need the bux. We wanted to ensure there were extra controls to safeguard the monies, but every bank we talked to said the same thing.

 

If we wanted 2 signatures on checks, that was ok with them, but they would only check one of them and not both, not their job apparently.

 

2 signatures is a unit decision and the unit must demonstrate fiduciary responsibility and stewardship for it's own sake. Double up on the info exchange. We have the bank statements mailed to another member of the committee who is asked to open it and read it before handing it to the CC or Treasurer at the next meeting/Committee meeting. Just a small amount of oversight, but worth the minor amount of trouble.

 

 

[scoutingagain]

As noted above, we have dual signature authority on our unit's checking account, but that basically means two individuals can write checks from the same account, the SM and the Treasurer. What's more important is that they both have access to the account statements. That way they can both monitor account activity. If there were a series of say unusual payments or transactions both would know about it and one person could not use the checking account without the knowledge of the other. This transparency keeps the potential for impropiety or more importantly, perceived impropriety, way down.

 

This is one reason why you don't like to see SM/CC or SM/Treasurer or CC/Treasurer combinations that are husband/wife, father/son or mother/son, etc. with only them having access to the back accounts.

 

As far as the initial question of the thread goes, it seems to me funds for Eagle projects should not be mingled with the troop general account. First it's questionable that such a troop should set up such an account. It's the Eagle candidate's responsiblity to secure funding for his project. If the unit is going to set up such an account, and I have heard of this before, it should be separate and the candidate should have to go through some type of application procedure has was suggested earlier. Show what the money is needed for, who it will benefit and why, and be required to submit reciepts or invoices to be paid directly to a vendor, almost like a purchase order system.

 

Just my humble thoughts.

 

SA