27 Nov
2013
27 Nov
'13
11:53 a.m.
i like the 'notconfusing' after the confusing arrows :)
max - i think we had put utilities under variable costs coming out of the
'operations' fund.
so the gist of the drawing is that we have a logic sequence for month to month finances:
1) sum up recurring revenues
2) pay fixed costs (rent, internet, fixed license or insurance, mortgage, etc...fixed)
3) pay operations costs including utilities, all previously approved programs, legal &
booze permits, maybe toner cartridges, etc, month to month hum-drum
4) some percentage (say 20%) goes straight into the rainy day fund at this time
5) remaining revenue can be discussed and allocated to any projects, programs, or one-time
purchases that are on the agenda and reach consensus
6) remaining revenue is split 50/50 between rainy day and maintenance/capital funds
we need to discuss program/project confirmation process - should be simplified for those
requiring no money and only want to use sudo room name/logo. for example, i got approval
at last week's meeting to have sudouino officially associated with sudo room in order
to use the name in fundraising material, but asking for no money, and turning over 100% of
net to general revenue once we have purchased equipment to make and populate the circuit
boards in house. Any project or program using the sudo name, whether requesting funding
or not, should have open finances per whatever standards we come up with. Some
capital-intensive programs will have to reinvest 100% of revenues for years in order to
build operational capacity. For example, though I haven't helped with subiir I know
that beer brewing is capital-intensive; at my old co-op we reinvested 100% back into
inventory and new equipment, occasionally deploying a 5gal keg during dinner as
"dividends." For others there could be a set, one-time purchase like a single
piece of equipment, with all further revenues going back into the sudo general revenue
stream. Whatever the financial plan for a given project or program is, as long as it has
open and clearly defined finances, and is agreed to by membership, I want the general
membership process to steer clear of micromanaging that operation.
I just want to reiterate that this is very much a brainstorming document, looking at how
we say we do things in the articles and applying some classification that is used as logic
input, as well as drafting a few structural classifications that will aid in transparency
and consistency as we move forward and things inevitably become more complex. i consider
this akin to having a conflict resolution procedure prior to the first conflict, in that
the document we craft will define uniform standards for everyone, thereby reducing the
feeling of personal attack in the event a project or program comes up short of our
transparency or conflict of interest standards.
As most of this is based on the articles, if you wish to help brainstorm and haven't
read the financial sections of the articles, it would be wise do so in order to know which
parts we are intending to bring up for discussion. The whole document will have to be
revised and submitted anyway in...60 days now?
cheers,
hol