Re: Troop money
Steven G. Tyler (sgtyler@EROLS.COM)
Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:29:28 -0500
Dave Livingston wrote, in part:
> I've been reading about this and some people are putting trust in the concept of two > signatures on a check as being some type of control.
> Might want to ask your banker about that. Banks do not check signature cards on > checks. In other words, you could have an account that is set up with multiple > signatures, have filled out the signatue cards at the bank, write and sign a check > with Elmer Fudd and Daffy Duck and have the check clear your account with no problem. > Just change the way you sign your name the next time on a check and see if tit is > processed.
Without disputing what you've said about what happens in the real world,
Dave, the teller IS supposed to check, and if a check which cleared with
"Daffy Duck" and "Elmer Fudd" signatures instead of the required
signatures, the BANK would be held accountable if challenged and would
have to restore the funds to the account.
> All unit funds should be audited by an independent party....I bet there is a parent out there that has some background in this?????
No disagreement on this. No ONE measure will ever provide complete
security -- it's the aggregate of ALL the measures that does the trick.
As the old saying goes, "Good walls make for good neighbors" -- if the
potential embezzelor knows there are effective checks, s/he will be less
tempted to "borrow" the funds.
Steve on Cattail Creek
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City