Are receipts required every time money is spent?

[ecatala77]

The by-laws of our small nonprofit corporation permit us to give money to families in the community during emergencies.  The money must be spent on education related items, such as school supplies or school clothes.  Robert's Rules of Order (p 120) states " Every treasurer should be careful to get a receipt whenever he makes a payment."  This has been interpreted by some of our members to get receipts even when we are donating money to someone in need. Others believe that it is tacky to ask a family (as in our most recent donation) whose house has burned to the ground, to give us receipts showing how they spent the money ($200) that we gave them, and that Robert's Rules require receipts for payments, but not for donations.

 

We consulted an online legal dictionary and found these definitions:

PAYMENT: That which is given to execute what has been promised; or it is the fulfillment of a promise. But though this is the general acceptation of the word, yet by payment is understood, every way by which the creditor is satisfied or ought to be, and the debtor, liberated for example, an accord and satisfaction will operate as a payment.

 

DONATION: The act by which the owner of a thing, voluntarily transfers the title and possession of the same, from himself to another person, without any consideration; a gift.

 

We are in the process of rewriting our by-laws and cannot get beyond this sticky point.

 

Question: Does Robert's Rules require that we get receipts (after purchases are made) for expenditures made with money that we donate?

[George Mervosh]

Question: Does Robert's Rules require that we get receipts (after purchases are made) for expenditures made with money that we donate?

 

No.  I don't think you're reading The Right Book either. 

[Thomas Ralph]

The quotation mentioned does not appear on page 120 of the current (11th) edition of Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised.

 

As a practical matter, it is desirable to obtain receipts for disbursements for which receipts are customarily given.

[Dan Honemann]

Robert's Rules of Order (p 120) states " Every treasurer should be careful to get a receipt whenever he makes a payment." 

 

No, it doesn't.

[Dan Honemann]

If you give people money as a gift, you obviously do not want to ask for a receipt. On the other hand, if you buy something to give to someone as a gift, you probably do want to get a receipt from the seller.

 

None of this has anything to do with parliamentary procedure.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Robert's Rules of Order (p 120) states " Every treasurer should be careful to get a receipt whenever he makes a payment."

 

 

No, it doesn't.

 

Picky, picky.

The actual statement that appears in RO [1st ed., p. 124] is "Every disbursing officer should be careful to get a receipt whenever he makes a payment ..."

[Guest Edgar]

Others believe that it is tacky to ask a family (as in our most recent donation) whose house has burned to the ground, to give us receipts showing how they spent the money ($200) that we gave them

A receipt doesn't necessarily have to show how they spent the money. That might, indeed, be tacky.

 

If you give them a check your canceled check will serve as a receipt.

[Gary Novosielski]

It is always a good idea to get a receipt, but as Edgar points out, a canceled check will do.

 

If payments are made in cash without a receipt in the name of avoiding "tackiness", you are exposed to unscrupulous actions by some (future) treasurer who may believe that charity begins at home.

 

But these are questions of proper accounting procedures, not parliamentary ones.

[ecatala77]

The page and quote were given to me by our historian / parliamentarian, whose most recent copy of the book was "borrowed "  and not returned.  I'll have to get a copy of the book and check for myself.  I couldn't understand what getting receipts for a donation had to do with Robert's Rules until he gave me that quote.  And, yes, we always pay by check.

 

Thanks everyone  for your help.

[Sean Hunt]

Thanks everyone.  The page and quote were given to me by our historian / parliamentarian.  I'll have to get a copy of the book and check for myself.

 

The modern edition doesn't say anything about accounting. Don't waste your time looking for anything about receipts in it.

[Dan Honemann]

Picky, picky.

The actual statement that appears in RO [1st ed., p. 124] is "Every disbursing officer should be careful to get a receipt whenever he makes a payment ..."

 

Believe it or not, I was well aware of this, but it seemed obvious to me that ecatala77 must be looking at one of the phony publications claiming to be Robert's Rules of Order.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Believe it or not, I was well aware of this, but it seemed obvious to me that ecatala77 must be looking at one of the phony publications claiming to be Robert's Rules of Order.

 

I have no trouble believing that you were well aware of the original provision, and of the fact that it had somehow fallen into desuetude.

 

 

The modern edition doesn't say anything about accounting. Don't waste your time looking for anything about receipts in it.

 

Actually, it's the "Modern Edition Robert's Rules of Order" that has this phony text on page 120!

[Dan Honemann]

The modern edition doesn't say anything about accounting. Don't waste your time looking for anything about receipts in it.

 

Well now you've gone and done it! Now, in the interests of making full disclosure, we must confess that the current edition does say that "some organizations have, in addition to the treasurer, a financial secretary —an officer whose usual duties are to bill members for their dues and to receive payment of them, to maintain a ledger of each member's account, and to turn over to the treasurer and obtain his receipt for moneys received", and also that, during the process of forming a new society, the secretary pro tem "should record and give receipt for payments received from members until the treasurer is elected and takes office" (p. 461, ll. 21-26; p. 560, ll. 6-8, emphasis supplied).

 

However, as discerning readers will note, these provisions clearly relate solely to internal transactions and not to transactions with third parties. One must not overlook the significance of this change in focus from earlier editions.   

[Rev Ed]

A receipt doesn't necessarily have to show how they spent the money. That might, indeed, be tacky.

 

If you give them a check your canceled check will serve as a receipt.

 

Exactly.  And in the case of donations, there should be a motion approving the donation and a cancelled cheque to back up the decision.  For other expenses, a receipt should provided for audits and/or tax purposes.

[Thomas Ralph]

Aside from the motion bit, I'm not sure how much of that is in RONR.