Cheque Signing Authority

[Guest erna]

Is there documentation stating the proper protocol for signing cheques and who can have signing authority in a Society? It is not stated in our by laws and this needs to be amended.

In the meantime, we have directors on our board that want to have cheques given to them by the Treasurer with her signature as the first of 2 signatures on them to pay for services. If these directors also have signing authority to complete the 2 signature requirement, is there a problem with this practice as long as the cheque is filled out otherwise?

Our Treasurer is very uncomfortable passing out cheques for directors to use, with her signature on them as one of the 2 signatures. She would prefer to pay for these services directly instead of passing a cheque through another director. Is this a common practice? Or something she is justified in her hesitancy?

Thank-you

[Guest Zev]

Is there documentation stating the proper protocol for signing cheques and who can have signing authority in a Society?

None that I can see in RONR.

 

It is not stated in our by laws and this needs to be amended.

This is a very good idea. All individuals with authority to sign checks should be mentioned specifically in the bylaws.

 

The treasurer, and any other officers who handle funds of the society, should be bonded for a sum sufficient to protect the society from loss.

In the meantime, we have directors on our board that want to have cheques given to them by the Treasurer with her signature as the first of 2 signatures on them to pay for services.

This part makes me extremely nervous. Having a blank check already signed by one of the authorized signatures is not something that makes me sleep at night. Unless there is overwhelming support for this type of arrangement I would counsel against it. Maybe others feel differently about this subject. Perhaps there is some mechanism to allay all fears but I am not sure right now what those would be.

 

If these directors also have signing authority to complete the 2 signature requirement, is there a problem with this practice as long as the cheque is filled out otherwise?

I doubt there is a problem as long as the bylaws stipulate these directors as having that authority. The "as long as" part is something I myself would have a real hard time with unless the assembly was fully aware of exactly what was taking place.

 

Our Treasurer is very uncomfortable passing out cheques for directors to use, with her signature on them as one of the 2 signatures.

Yes, I would be also. My experience has been that when the assembly authorized an expenditure the check would be filled out the treasurer would sign it, the president would sign it, then the check would be sent to the provider of the services. Having several directors with signing authority makes it easier to find someone in case a director is out of town. I am sure there are other possible arrangements and would not mind hearing about others that have proved successful.

 

She would prefer to pay for these services directly instead of passing a cheque through another director.

I can understand that. However, the important thing is to have the assembly determine this question. They are the ones that must be comfortable with the final arrangement.

 

Is this a common practice?

I really do not know. I will have to pass on that one.

 

Or something she is justified in her hesitancy?

I think so.

 

Other ideas, anyone?

[Dan Honemann]

None that I can see in RONR.

 

This is a very good idea. All individuals with authority to sign checks should be mentioned specifically in the bylaws.

 

This part makes me extremely nervous. Having a blank check already signed by one of the authorized signatures is not something that makes me sleep at night. Unless there is overwhelming support for this type of arrangement I would counsel against it. Maybe others feel differently about this subject. Perhaps there is some mechanism to allay all fears but I am not sure right now what those would be.

 

I doubt there is a problem as long as the bylaws stipulate these directors as having that authority. The "as long as" part is something I myself would have a real hard time with unless the assembly was fully aware of exactly what was taking place.

 

Yes, I would be also. My experience has been that when the assembly authorized an expenditure the check would be filled out the treasurer would sign it, the president would sign it, then the check would be sent to the provider of the services. Having several directors with signing authority makes it easier to find someone in case a director is out of town. I am sure there are other possible arrangements and would not mind hearing about others that have proved successful.

 

I can understand that. However, the important thing is to have the assembly determine this question. They are the ones that must be comfortable with the final arrangement.

 

I really do not know. I will have to pass on that one.

 

I think so.

 

Other ideas, anyone?

Yes. It would have been better had you stopped after "None that I can see in RONR." :-)

This forum is restricted to questions and answers about proper parliamentary procedure under the rules in RONR.

[Guest Zev]

Yes. It would have been better had you stopped after "None that I can see in RONR." :-)

This forum is restricted to questions and answers about proper parliamentary procedure under the rules in RONR.

You are oh so right, Mr. H. In my over-exuberance to help I crossed the line. I beg your forgiveness.