<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:32, Peter Lieverdink <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:me@cafuego.net">me@cafuego.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">----- "Steve Walsh" <<a href="mailto:steve@nerdvana.org.au">steve@nerdvana.org.au</a>> wrote:<br>
> Peter Lieverdink wrote:<br>
> > ----- "Andrew Ruthven" <<a href="mailto:andrew@etc.gen.nz">andrew@etc.gen.nz</a>> wrote:<br>
> >> I've been suggesting this to everyone who will listen.<br>
> So that fell down in that by the time the LCA2010 team needed access, it<br>
> had been quite some time since they were in Australia, and could have<br>
> visited a Westpac branch, gotten IDs, and signed all the necessary<br>
> paperwork.</div></div></blockquote><div><br>So that's very special for NZers; for Australians, it's just a matter of identifying yourself to Westpac (100 points etc), and having the Westpac online admin link the id with the online accounts. By the looks of things the paperwork's gone through now, so John should be the online admin and this should be easy.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div class="h5"> > Adding people to bank accounts with multiple signatories is<br>
> a long and (partially necessary) convoluted process,and not something<br>
> that can be done over the phone.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>The signatories part is only actually needed for authorisation to change accounts and to sign cheques; the online admin is all that's needed for online access.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div class="h5">
> > An account yes. Is there such a thing as "the" account? There wasn't<br>
> > one for 08. Don't know about 09. 07 had one... perhaps the legacy one<br>
> > is the 07 one.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Yes, there was one for 08 -- the same account was used for 07, 08 and 09. The reconciliation statements I emailed Donna every now and then corresponded with that account. 07 was the first year we used the Westpac accounts, prior to that 05 used the Commonwealth LCA account, as did (ttbomk) 04, and 03. 06 had an NZ Westpac account which we set up at Ghosts, with at least Jon Oxer, Mark Tearle and myself as signatories as well as the locals; possibly Pia as well, I'm not 100% sure.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div class="h5">> > Wouldn't it be relatively easy for the winning team to set up an<br>
> > account at a *local* Westpac branch as soon as they know they've won<br>
> > and have the relevant council members added shortly after the<br>
> > election?</div></div></blockquote><div><br>The bad parts about that are:<br> - it's a new account, so interfacing it with any existing accounting structures is difficult<br> - it's a new account, so letting the LA council have access to it is difficult<br>
- it's separate to the LA accounts, so it's not easy for the LA council to make sure it's properly closed and accounted for after LCA is finished (cf 2006, which had about NZD$1000 sitting in it until mid last year)<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div class="h5"> > > It's not as if the LA ctte necessarily need full access to the LCA<br>
> > account. Just read-only is fine.</div></div></blockquote><div><br>I don't agree with that.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div class="h5">> In previous years there has been a transaction limit on the LCA account,<br>
> so that transactions over a ceiling required one of the 4 token<br>
> holders to sign off on. It wasn't because we didn't trust people, it was so<br>
> that the council could undertake due diligence and governance, and be aware<br>
> of, and sign off on, $40k leaving the conference account. I'm sure the<br>
> LCA2009 team members that are on the list can advise if this requirement<br>
> was onerous or not.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>The tokens were needed because they were the only way to authorise amounts of around $10k or greater going to NZ, iirc. Having put them on, they apply to any transaction that'd put LA over its $5000 daily limit. That's not especially onerous; and it would be simple to simply get an additional two tokens to assign to the LCA lead and treasurer.<br>
<br>The reason that stuff hasn't been done in the past is because the biggest concerns about treasury have been getting any access at all, and getting all the historical stuff sorted out. Creating new temporary accounts is a great way of both losing access to funds and losing track of stuff so that it becomes a problem for some future council to sort out; I'd seriously recommend avoiding it, or at least actually trying out the current system given this is the first time in four years or so that the paperwork looks like it's actually properly sorted out.<br>
<br>Cheers,<br>aj<br></div></div><br>-- <br>Anthony Towns <<a href="mailto:aj@erisian.com.au">aj@erisian.com.au</a>><br>