$73K over 2 yrs embezzled from scout troop

[scoutingagain]

Barry's suggestion that you pick an honest person is a good one. However, just as youth protection is just as much about protecting adults from unfounded acusations good accounting practices do the same. Simply having at least 2 different, independant people, preferably 3, having access to the account records and having them check the account even quarterly is often enough. Even a small unit should be able to manage some level of independant oversight of financial records. Any resistance to having independant access to the financial records is a red flag.

 

SA

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Fred,

 

 

I really like the e-mailable bank statements.

[eisely]

The problem with picking an "honest" person is that all scouts are trustworthy. I would wager that in none of the cases that occasionally make the news did the alleged thief start out with a plan to embezzle the funds. Opportunities presented themselves and people succumbed to temptation. No system is totally foolproof anymore than YP guarantees total safety. However, having even a simple system in place will deter most such crime.

[emb021]

"Personally I'm not in favor of requiring two signatures on checks, it's too burdensome for my taste."

 

For a unit committee that meets at least monthly, and is all in the same town, it shouldn't be a big deal.

 

My Toastmasters district, which covers all of South Florida and the Bahamas has to do 2 signatures on checks. Our district leadership only meets 6 times a year, so if the Treasurer needs to cut a check in between, must find one of the other district officers nearby. So this can delay sending out a check by several day. But I don't see anyone complaining about that.

 

2 signatures won't stop everything, but its still a good procedure.

 

[fred8033]

"2 signatures won't stop everything, but its still a good procedure."

 

Agreed. For our unit though, it's a moot procedure as multiple leaders see images of the checks thru emailing the PDF bank statements and those statements have images of each check. IMHO, the solution is transparancy.

[Beavah]

Yah, yeh all do realize that the bank doesn't actually check signatures on any check these days, right? So the two signatures bit is really in the "no help whatsoever" category.

 

I agree with Eagledad. Select your treasurer, don't take volunteers. Choose someone who is professional and honest. As important, choose someone who is relatively well-off - someone for whom the amount of money flowin' through the scout bank account will not pose a real temptation.

 

After that, the additional check of having statements go to someone else is a good one, but make sure that person is close enough to the operational side of the program to be able to recognize issues - stuff like there shouldn't have been two separate payments for canoe gear. Lots of times, regular committee folk might not be able to recognize some of the "tricks".

 

And if yeh are buildin' a larger capital reserve that's gettin' up in the 5 figures, it might be time to offload that into a custodial account held by the chartered organization. Yeh might get better interest, for one, but it will also prevent unauthorized big-dollar withdrawals.

 

Beavah

 

Beavah

 

[Oak Tree]

I'll agree with those above who say that two signatures are of no benefit and are too burdensome for my taste.

 

I also agree that getting advance approval for every purchase is too much of a hassle, as well. We do some kind of blanket authorization - "The equipment coordinator has authority to order up to $500 of equipment as determined by the quartermaster and himself.";

 

For bigger numbers, I do just check with the committee chairman to get his ok on expenditures.

 

I think the best protection is knowing that other people will be able to see the statements - either because they are looked at monthly, or they get mailed to someone else's house or to the CO, or because they are electronically accessible by others.

 

And I certainly agree with the idea of choosing someone who is well-off and respectable and unlikely to risk anything on stealing small amounts of money from the Scouts.

[emb021]

"Yah, yeh all do realize that the bank doesn't actually check signatures on any check these days, right? So the two signatures bit is really in the "no help whatsoever" category."

 

Don't be too sure of that.

 

We had a minor issue with our bank when they did with one org I was the President of. It wasn't a big check AND it DID have 2 signature. Problem was they were too close together and the bank didn't think there was two. So they were calling us up about it.